Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FEDERATION OF STREET TRADERS UNION (LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES ACT 1990) (AMENDMENT) BILL (By Order)

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 24 March.

BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Inter-party Talks

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the resumption of the inter-party talks process and on talks he has had with the Irish Government.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I recently met the leaders of the three Northern Ireland parties involved in the bilateral discussions. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), is discussing our ideas at further meetings with the parties. At the intergovernmental conference on 10 March, both Governments reaffirmed their commitment to the search for a comprehensive political settlement covering the main relationships.

Mr. McAvoy: Is the Secretary of State aware that this is St. Patrick's day, when we celebrate a great man of peace? Bearing in mind the right hon. and learned Gentleman's responsibility to follow in the footsteps of that man of peace, what proposals does he have to bring the Ulster Unionist party back into the three-stranded talks process?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I acknowledge the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said—indeed, I have personal reasons to be pleased that it is St. Patrick's day.
There is no question of bringing the Unionist parties back into the talks at the moment. The Democratic Unionist party is not prepared to engage in bilateral discussions, but I am pleased that bilateral discussions are continuing on their former basis between my hon. Friend the Minister of State and the Ulster Unionist party, the Alliance party and the Social Democratic and Labour party.

Mr. Peter Robinson: In his discussions with the Dublin Government, has the Secretary of State agreed—as Mr. Reynolds said that he had in a recent Irish News article—on a definition of the word "consent" in the Downing street declaration? Under that definition, which the British and Irish Governments have agreed, there can be constitutional mutation which leads to a united Ireland without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, and only the final legal act of severance requires consent.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: There has been no such agreement.

Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State recall that, in the original scheme some four years ago, it was decided, and accepted by all concerned, that the first phase should concentrate on designing a workable, practical system of devolved government in Northern Ireland and that we would move, in due course, to discuss a possible relationship between that body and the Irish Government? Does the Secretary of State still feel that that was a natural order of progress?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the statement of 26 March 1991 set out the three strands. It was arranged that there should be discussions on the first strand until the stage was reached when, in the judgment of the Secretary of State, it was appropriate to invite the Irish Government to join the discussions, to discuss matters connected with strands 2 and 3.
I think that it has come to be recognised among the parties that the three-stranded approach is essential and it has been borne in on me from all sides that people cannot be expected to reach final conclusions on any particular strand until they know the position of other parties on other strands. That is a sensible way of proceeding.

Mr. Couchman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure the House—the callous brutality of the mortar attacks on Heathrow in the past week and of other terrorist atrocities notwithstanding—that the thrust for peace remains, that the Downing street declaration of December remains a vehicle for peace and that he will not let Sinn Fein and the IRA derail the thrust for peace through either the three-stranded talks or the declaration?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: It was not only callous; it was extremely wicked to launch the attacks of which my hon. Friend speaks. The declaration stands as a freestanding declaration of principle, of consent and of rejection of violence. If Sinn Fein or the Provisional IRA considers that, by violence, it can secure a departure from the declaration or any concession from the British Government, it would be better employed taking a running jump. There is to be no concession and no departure.

Mr. McGrady: May I bring greetings to you, Madam Speaker, and all Members of the House on this St. Patrick's day from the Hill of Patrick in my constituency? Does the Secretary of State agree that the best prospect for the peace process now is the continuation of the inter-party three-stranded talks, based on the carefully negotiated agreement of 26 March 1991, which is still extant? Does he agree that, based on the principles enunciated in the


Downing street agreement of 15 December 1993, the hope for peace, for which we all pray, would be best served by that?
Will the Secretary of State recommence the first phase of the talks because, as he said, the strands are interwoven? We had passed from strand 1 into strands 2 and 3. We should not go back to the starting post, but carry on from where we left off. Those parties that, for reasons of violence or politics, cannot join in that process should be allowed to join the table when they feel that they can do so.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The best hope for peace is if the Provisional IRA and anybody else who uses violence for political means recognise that it will get them nowhere. They will end up in prison; in the past four weeks, 40 people have been charged with serious terrorist offences. That is the best hope for peace. I absolutely agree that it is necessary to proceed with the political talks with which I have already dealt this afternoon in answer to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux).

Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. and learned Friend, when he next meets the Irish Government, raise the issue of cross-border security? I acknowledge that relations are good between the RUC and the Garda, but it would be helpful if the Irish Government showed more commitment in terms of providing resources and manpower, sharing intelligence and permitting Army helicopters to go in hot pursuit of terrorists when they flee to the south. After all, terrorists are no respecters of any sovereign nation.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Cross-border co-operation is always on the agenda at meetings of the intergovernmental conference. Progress has certainly been made. Improved communications, technical co-operation, liaison structures and joint threat assessments are all items of improved co-operation. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend and the House to the statement issued yesterday by the Chief Constable of the RUC in which he said that co-operation was at an all-time high. He said:
The success rate of the Garda in finding arms and explosives, and making arrests, has been first rate and is plain for all to see.
We shall continue to pursue those matters with the Irish Government.

Mr. Alton: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity of underlining what the Irish Prime Minister said—that the struggle is not now against the British Government but against the Irish people? Will he consider the possibility of appointing someone like Ninian Stephen or perhaps the President as an interlocutor or mediator to take the peace process forward?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman accurately quotes what Mr. Reynolds said in America yesterday. I add to that another quotation. He said:
If they"—
the Provisionals—
are trying to get new or additional terms for people who use violence to try and achieve a political end, then they will not succeed.
I do not think, however, that there is any need for a mediator; the joint declaration makes the position abundantly clear and it will stand. As the Taoiseach said, the Provisionals have to recognise that, if they wish to join the democratic process, they must give up violence for good.

Mrs. Angela Knight: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the outrage felt by my constituents in Erewash and throughout Derbyshire at the failure of the Irish courts to extradite the two people wanted for questioning by the Derbyshire police force about the murder of a soldier in Derby two years ago. In his talks with the Irish Government, will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to do everything he can to ensure that they change their law in such a way that the Irish courts would extradite in circumstances in the future? Murder is murder; it is not a political crime.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I warmly agree, as of course does the whole House, with my hon. Friend's last sentence. She never fails—and very properly—to remind me of the concern of her constituents in that recent case. It is to be understood that the Irish Government are now taking through their parliamentary process—it has been through the Dail—a Bill that would have removed two of the three grounds on which the High Court judge relied in refusing the extradition request in the two most recent cases. I must recognise that the Irish High Court judges are as independent of their Government as ours are of the British Government. We referred to the first case at the previous intergovernmental conference and mentioned the disappointment that was widely felt at the outcome.

Mr. McNamara: The Secretary of State will, of course, remember that, in that particular case, the judges in the Republic made a comment on a third ground about the prejudging of cases by the British press and how dangerous that was. We have had examples of that both in the Republic and in this country.
May we go back to the original question that was raised? I noted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman dodged the point that was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy). Can he say that no attempt whatever will be allowed to decouple the first strand from the other two strands, that he still stands by "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" and that he does not regard that as a fatuous formula?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: There is no question of dodging anything at all. I will not make any comment on the case; I never make comments on judicial observations either in our own jurisdiction or in anybody else's. It is perfectly legitimate to express disappointment at the outcome. That is as far as I go.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, it has been made clear time and again that the Government stand behind a three-stranded approach. I suppose that I could go on saying that, but it would take a lot of time if I did. There is no question of decoupling. Whether the parties in the resumed talks wish to maintain that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed is a matter for them. That is not a matter on which I can lay down a rule.

Harbours and Ferry Service

Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who advises him on the safety of the harbours and the ferry service linking the inhabited island with County Antrim.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tim Smith): Advice on these matters is provided by the marine directorate of the


Department of Transport, which, from 1 April, will be known as the Marine Safety Agency, and by the Health and Safety Executive.

Mr. Bottomley: Northern Ireland has one inhabited offshore island—Rathlin. If Rathlin were in the south of Ireland or in Scotland, the harbour facilities would be improved. Will my hon. Friend engage all the efforts of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who has more right to call himself Irish than St. Patrick, to ensure that, whether from European funds or from Northern Ireland funds, the harbours at Castle Bay and Ballycastle are improved? That cannot be done by Moyle council itself. There must be some other form of funding.

Mr. Smith: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in Rathlin island and am sorry that it was not possible to include improvements to the harbour facilities in this year's public spending round, but I will do as he suggests for the future.

Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that the ferry services operating from Belfast and Larne, County Antrim, and my constituency operate within the highest possible safety standards? Does he further agree that the safety of ships' passengers and crews would be enhanced by the provision of a lifeboat at Larne and by the improvement of roads to the ports of Northern Ireland and to the ports on the western coast of the most inhabited island—Great Britain?

Mr. Smith: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in the port of Lame and will look carefully at what he said about the provision of a lifeboat. I am looking with great care at road links.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I, too, should like to greet the House on St. Patrick's day and also to say that the Secretary of State could do a good service to Northern Ireland for once by declaring St. Patrick's day a public holiday. That would please the nationalists, because they think that St. Patrick was a Roman Catholic, and the Protestants, because they know that he was a Protestant and a Brit.
Having said that, I remind the Minister that the real problem for Rathlin island is not its harbour but the deplorable harbour at Ballycastle. Is he aware that, last Friday, many school children could have been drowned by the terrible swell in the harbour at Ballycastle? Will he see to it that some of the structural funds that will now be available from the EEC will be put to an urgent reconstruction of the harbour at Ballycastle so that the people from Rathlin have a proper entrance to the mainland?

Mr. Smith: I am afraid that I am not in a position to render St. Patrick's day a public holiday, much as I should like to do so. I will refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the. Secretary of State.
I was very concerned to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about Rathlin island, and I will visit the island as soon as I can to see what can be done.

Privatisation

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the Government's plans for privatisation in Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): The Government will privatise Belfast international airport by way of a trade sale during 1994. The Ports (Northern Ireland) Order will permit any trust port to bring forward a scheme for privatisation. The previously announced intention to privatise water and sewerage services will not take place within the lifetime of this Parliament.

Mr. Mackinlay: Why do the Government ignore the views of the Belfast harbour commissioners, the work force at the port and the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland, as reflected by the elected representatives? Those people consider the privatisation programme completely irrelevant to the real needs of people in Northern Ireland and the rest of the country.
Why is the Minister going to privatise the professional police force at Northern Ireland airport, and why is he ignoring the views of the Belfast harbour commissioners, who reject the privatisation proposal? Will he review these crackpot proposals?

Sir John Wheeler: I certainly do not accept the hon. Gentleman's description of the initiatives as "crackpot"—far from it. The proposals are designed to improve the quality and standard of services. I understand that the House considered the question of Aldergrove airport and its police service a short time ago and that the House was assured that the police service would continue to function as heretofore.

Rev. William McCrea: During discussions in the ministerial team about the continuation of the plans for privatisation in the Province, did the Minister and his colleagues consider the possibility of privatising the Northern Ireland Office? Surely, if privatisation is regarded as a policy in the interests of the community, the privatisation of the Northern Ireland Office would be very popular. It would clean out the nest of those who flirt with our political enemies and negotiate privately with people who are our murdering foes.

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the originality of his proposal. I am confident, however, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my ministerial colleagues are satisfied with the high quality and standard of service given by the civil servants who serve the Northern Ireland Office.

Mr. Stott: The Minister of State may not recall—if he does not, the Under-Secretary of State certainly will—that, during the debate on the privatisation of Belfast international airport, I pointed out that Commissioner Bruce Milian had informed me that the European Commission might seek a clawback of the proportion of money that the Commission had put into the refurbishment of the airport following its privatisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has received a similar letter from Commissioner Millan, saying that the Commission may seek to claw back—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have not heard the hon. Gentleman ask a question yet.

Mr. Stott: Is the Minister aware that we have had a further letter from Bruce Milian, saying that a similar clawback principle would apply if the Government privatised any of the trust ports in Northern Ireland?

Sir John Wheeler: I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State dealt with the matter in the debate in the House a short time ago. If there is any further information that the Government should take into account, they will certainly do so.

Downing Street Declaration

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest situation regarding the Downing street declaration.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The declaration by the two Heads of Government is a statement of the fundamental principles of democracy, consent and the rejection of violence. It is, accordingly, not time limited, and will stand.

Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the clearest signals that the Irish Government could send the men of violence would be a statement that they intend to scrap articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, which lay claim to Northern Ireland, if the men of violence—the IRA and Sinn Fein—do not renounce violence, as foreseen in the Downing street declaration? In any event, is not such a claim an anachronism in this day and age?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The answer to the second question is, honestly, yes, it is an anachronism. I believe that to be essentially understood. One of the most interesting features of the joint declaration is a clear statement by the Taoiseach in one of its paragraphs of his understanding of the resentment that the two articles cause to Unionists. On the other hand, he says that they represent an aspiration of many nationalists. A clear steer is given by the Taoiseach in that declaration—that if an overall package is agreed, then as part of a balanced constitutional settlement, amendments to the constitution will be put to the Irish people and will be supported by the Irish Government. I do not believe that there is anything between the two Governments on this issue, and my hon. Friend is right to raise the matter in that context.

Mr. Mallon.: May I also bring greetings from the Hill of St. Patrick in Armagh, where St. Patrick wisely chose to live and work? That he decided to die and be buried in Downpatrick was a matter of fine judgment on his part.
Will the Secretary of State agree with me, and remind the House and others, that the joint declaration of 15 December was signed not for Sinn Fein and the IRA, but for all the Irish people? The most recent opinion poll in Ireland shows that 92 per cent. of the Irish people overwhelmingly rejected violence and supported absolutely the principles in the joint declaration. Does the Secretary of State agree that the two Governments should now proceed to apply those principles to a set of arrangements for the whole island, which, in the words of the joint declaration, could bring agreement among all the people of the island, and do that in such a way that it is not prevented by the Unionists who have opted out or the republicans who will not opt in?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree very much with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's statement—[Interruption.] Perhaps I mean the second part, after the obeisance to St. Patrick, which was entirely appropriate.
On the remainder of the statement, the joint declaration is based on the principle of consent. That is what got up the

noses of the Provisionals. They recognise that they cannot obtain consent for their version of a united Ireland by democratic means. Accordingly, they resort to violence. The declaration said that nobody who resorts to violence for political ends will join the democratic process. It is because of that stance that the Provisionals are rejected all around the world, not least in the United States of America. The two Governments stand side by side on the declaration and on their determination to advance with the main constitutional parties down the talks process with the same objective there has always been.

Mr. Hunter: As it was the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic who said that there would be a crackdown against the IRA if it rejected the terms and the spirit of the joint declaration, will my right hon. and learned Friend "seek clarification", as the expression goes, from the Prime Minister as to what he meant by that crackdown and inquire when there will be clear evidence of that response?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Those matters are always under discussion at the meetings that take place on a regular basis. It is important to recognise that no security measure has been held in abeyance. My hon. Friend would be rather critical had any practical measure been held in abeyance pending the response of the IRA to the joint declaration. The full range of security measures has been, and will continue to be, brought to bear on all terrorists. Those measures are reviewed the whole time, not least in conjunction with the Irish Government. I am glad to read what the Chief Constable of the RUC said yesterday about the high level of co-operation between his forces and the Garda.

Mr. Trimble: Does the Secretary of State agree that the declaration addressed two questions—first, the circumstances in which a united Ireland could be achieved, which is a purely hypothetical question as there is clearly no consent for such an outcome, and, secondly, how the IRA could enter democratic politics if it so wished, although it is perfectly clear that it does not so wish? Given the response to those hypothetical questions, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman further agree that the declaration is an irrelevance and cannot be used as the basis for future institutions and should not be used by him as an excuse for not implementing arrangements for stability in Northern Ireland that he knows have the most widespread acceptance?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I have never used the joint declaration as an excuse for anything. As I have said more than once this afternoon, the declaration is a declaration of fundamental principle; it does not cease to be one on 15 March, having been one on 15 December. Nor does it preclude the taking of any security or political measures that are deemed prudent and sensible for the achievement of a less antagonistic and more tranquil and prosperous way of life in Northern Ireland—the purpose which all the constitutional parties joined up to serve and to seek. The hon. Gentleman played a notable part in that process a year ago.

Mr. McNamara: The Secretary of State will be aware that he has the full support of the Labour party for his interpretation of the declaration. We regard it as a set of principles that will outlast any possible lapse in talks. That must be the way forward. Does he accept that Labour


believes that, if the parties cannot reach agreement, implicit in the declaration is a responsibility on both Governments to attempt to develop their own institutional framework for peace and to put it to the parties?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's comments in the first part of his question, but he will not entice me into a clarification of what has always been extremely clear in the text of the joint declaration. I shall not follow him into any discussion of what is implicit. I am perfectly prepared to recite what is explicit and what it does not contain. That is all that I want to say about that.
We must recognise, as both Governments did in the joint declaration, that there is no prospect of anything workable or durable being achieved in Northern Ireland, save that which is based on consent. That is the fundamental principle. We must continue, patiently and steadily, to probe what may be possible, what the areas of common agreement are and what, if possible, may require adjustment in people's positions. That is what we are doing and I should like to see a slightly more positive and slightly less carping attitude from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brandreth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that prospects for inward investment will be particularly enhanced by the success of the initiative launched at the time of the declaration? Does he have any progress to report on inward investment in Northern Ireland?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the most hypocritical and disgusting features of the Provisional IRA is that it claims to speak for the people of Ireland, but does nothing but diminish their prospects for employment and prosperity. Fortunately, such are the attractions of Ireland—north and south, but I am talking about Northern Ireland—for inward investment from overseas that, in the past year, the Industrial Development Board has been able to secure £200 million worth of inward investment and about 2,000 jobs. Prospects for this year are no less bright.

Party Leaders (Meetings)

Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next hopes to meet the leaders of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has recently held meetings with the leaders of the three Northern Ireland parties who have been engaged in private bilateral discussions and I have subsequently begun a series of further bilateral meetings with representatives from those parties to discuss our ideas for giving sharper focus and direction to the talks process.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister continue to do everything possible to drive forward the peace process, in spite of the antics of fanatics on both the loyalist and republican sides? 'Will he take this opportunity to say a little about the Secretary of State's ideas for the establishment of cross-border executive boards, with delegated powers from the Irish and British Governments? What functions does he intend such boards to cover?

Mr. Ancram: We have made it clear all along—I agree with the hon. Gentleman—that no one can be allowed to

exercise a veto over the talks process by the exercise of violence. I repeat that assurance. It is for that reason that the talks process is proceeding. As to the second part of his question, the hon. Gentleman is talking about matters that are essentially part of the discussions that are required to take place over the three strands. It will be of no constructive use for us to try to define the parts of any strand in public in this House before negotiations have taken place with the participants in the talks. That is something to be considered in due course as part of the talks process.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend realise that some of us are often baffled by the language that is used when describing matters political in Northern Ireland? How can there be consensus if one is saying that there can be no veto? I do not see how the two can be bedfellows. Does it mean that we will never reach any agreements at any time?

Mr. Ancram: No. The phrase that has been used many times in relation to finding a settlement in Northern Ireland—indeed, across the three relationships within the islands of the British Isles—has been that any solution has to be broadly or widely acceptable to the peoples involved. Therefore, any settlements in relation to institutions in Northern Ireland would have to have the broad agreement of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Does the Minister agree that the constitutional leaders hold the key to peaceful political progress in Northern Ireland? Does he accept that the consensus of opinion is that all efforts should be directed, with those leaders, towards a devolutionary process rather than towards pursuing the three-stranded approach with the Irish Government?

Mr. Ancram: I appreciate the importance of the leaders of the three constitutional parties who are presently taking part in bilateral talks with me. I certainly intend to continue those bilaterals. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has already said, it is matter of practical reality that we cannot look at one strand within the three-stranded concept in isolation from the other strands. A solution in one strand cannot be achieved without solutions within the other strands. For that reason, we have made it clear that the talks that are taking place at the moment involve all the participants across all three strands.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for the hard work that he has done already in trying to keep the political dialogue going. Does he agree—particularly on this of all days—that the remarkable phenomenon of bringing fully into account the Irish dimension is that the two Governments stand shoulder to shoulder on the declaration and that there is no movement away from that? That is the disconcerting reality for the extremists, and we expect the moderates on the Ulster Unionist side also to acknowledge that reality.

Mr. Ancram: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend that it is immensely important that the two Governments continue to stand shoulder to shoulder on the basis of the joint declaration. At the same time, I think that it is important that the Irish Government have restated their commitment to the talks involving the constitutional parties. I believe that we are not yet ready to get around a


table. There is groundwork to be done and that groundwork will be undertaken, I hope, by the constitutional parties and the two Governments.

Peace Process

Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further plans he has to bring about peace in the north of Ireland.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I propose to continue to enlist and engage to the full every means whereby it is appropriate for a democratic society to defend itself against those who assault its principles and its people.

Mr. Austin-Walker: Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is the Government's view that, apart from the unification of Ireland by coercion or the expulsion of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom, no constitutional political party has any veto on political progress, including the establishment of institutions agreed by the two Governments?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course it is a matter of constitutional reality that no one has a veto. It is something that has passed into the current language at the instance of people who object to the fact that the numerical majority of people living in Northern Ireland do not wish to end the Union. That is what is objected to and it is then described as a veto at the suit of some political parties. It is quite untrue.

Sir James Kilfedder: I bring greetings from North Down, where St. Patrick landed 15 centuries ago. He was a distinguished Briton who returned to northern Ireland. Is not it appropriate that, on St. Patrick's day, we should remember St. Patrick's utter and unqualified condemnation of the murderers in Ireland in his day? He described those people as wishing to "gorge themselves on blood". He condemned to eternal damnation not only them but those who acquiesced in such slaughter. Does not the Secretary of State agree that St. Patrick's words are as applicable today as they were 15 centuries ago?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course that is right. I cannot claim to represent the place where St. Patrick landed or the various places where he is buried. I can claim only to be named after him and I am very glad about that, among the other things to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Secretary of State aware that this is indeed an historic occasion? It is the first time that a Secretary of State called Patrick has answered Northern Ireland questions on St. Patrick's day. Bearing in mind that St. Patrick is the patron saint of the entire island of Ireland, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman try to live up to his name by ensuring that any constitutional settlement contains a meaningful all-Ireland dimension that will help to reconcile and unite all the people of Ireland? Will he remind his good friend the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that if Ireland were united, St. Patrick's day would almost certainly be observed as a public holiday throughout the 32 counties, instead of in just 26 of them?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: St. Patrick's day is a public holiday for the Northern Ireland civil service, and probably rather more generally. If there is to be an all-Ireland connotation in anything that is agreed, at any time, it will

be only because, for a start, that is the wish of a numerical majority of the people living in Northern Ireland. That is recognised by the Irish Government in the joint declaration. Everything must be based on consent. However, anything that serves, by way of tradition or example, to concentrate upon those things that unite, rather than those that divide, people in the island of Ireland is to be welcomed. I regard as felicitous my good fortune to be answering Northern Ireland questions on St. Patrick's day. It seems to have got me along all right so far.

Mr. Spring: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in welcoming the remarks of Speaker Tom Foley of the United States House of Representatives? Does the Secretary of State agree that, in retrospect, Gerry Adams's visit to the United States, far from being a spectacular propaganda victory for the IRA, drew attention to the isolation that that organisation's espousal of violence is causing not only in the Republic of Ireland and in the United Kingdom but in the world at large?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I entirely agree. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I, too, express my greetings to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on her arrival in the Chamber on this felicitous day. From the other side of the Atlantic there has come a chorus of condemnation of the Provisionals for the continuance of their wicked and inexcusable violence. That is down to the two Governments' standing side by side with the constitutional parties in rejecting violence for political ends. I very much agree with what my hon. Friend said.

European Community Funding

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received concerning the disbursement of European Community structural funds; and if he will make a statement.

Sir John Wheeler: As part of the continuing process of consultation with local organisations, Ministers and officials have received numerous representations on the use of structural funds money in Northern Ireland.

Dr. Godman: Given the immensely important role played by the voluntary sector in bringing and keeping people together, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the voluntary and community groups are brought into the deliberations concerning the European programmes and that they have adequate representation on the monitoring programmes that will determine how such funds are spent in Northern Ireland?

Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I are grateful to the voluntary groups for their contribution to the life of Northern Ireland. When the Commission has made known its agreement to our proposals we shall consider establishing a monitoring committee. I am sure that it will be possible to bring into that committee appropriate representation from the voluntary sector to assist in the disbursement of the funds that will be available to us over the next six years.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mrs. Prentice: In the light of today's newspaper reports, does the Attorney-General still have the full confidence of the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: The Attorney-General has my full and complete confidence. He has made it perfectly clear today, in the light of the reports in this morning's newspapers, that he has no knowledge of any approach by MI6 to him or to his office asking that the Matrix Churchill prosecution should be stopped. He has received no notification from the Scott inquiry that any such evidence has been given to it, and the inquiry has made it clear that it cannot recall that any such evidence has been given.

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bellingham: Will the Prime Minister find time today to plan a visit to Birmingham and Manchester city councils, where he will find debt at the same level as the national debts of Paraguay and El Salvador? Is it not a disgrace that those Labour-controlled councils, encouraged by Opposition Members, have betrayed not only their electorates but future generations? Is not it time that they were flung out of office?

The Prime Minister: Those councils certainly have a very poor record, as my hon. Friend says, and although the people of Birmingham and Manchester have a great deal of which they can be proud, in Birmingham, certainly, the people cannot be proud of the record of their Labour council. Of every £10 that Birmingham receives in council tax it now has to spend £7 on servicing its debt, but when one considers many other Labour authorities one realises that it is by no means alone in that appalling record.

Mrs. Beckett: Does not the Prime Minister realise that he need look no further than Westminster, which has a debt higher than that of Mongolia? Will he join me in welcoming the fact that the average council tax to be charged in Labour local authority areas this year will be £40 lower than the average council tax to be charged in Tory areas?

The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Lady's first point about debt, she might bear in mind the fact that Islington owes more than Togo, Camden more than Chad, Bradford more than Botswana and Leeds more than Lesotho. As for council tax, the right hon. Lady knows very well that she is not comparing band for band or like with like. When she compares band for band she will see that Conservative councils are many tens of pounds—in some cases more than £100—cheaper.

Mrs. Beckett: Does not the Prime Minister realise that the measure that we have consistently used not only gives the best overall picture but is the measure with which the Government started out? It is the measure that was used by both the Department of the Environment and Conservative central office in their documents. Is not the truth that the Government changed the measure only when they realised that it showed that people pay less in Labour local council areas? Is not that the reason why?

The Prime Minister: I must say that the right hon. Lady is being extremely silly and is talking rubbish. What the figures show across the country is that Conservative-controlled local authorities set far lower council taxes than do Labour. So far this year the figures—

Mrs. Beckett: indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: It is no good the right hon. Lady shaking her head: it is quite true. The figures show that where Labour controls both tiers of English local government the average council tax is £560 for a band C property, over £130 more than the Conservative average of £429. However the right hon. Lady wriggles, she will find that pattern across the country.

Mrs. Beckett: It is the Prime Minister who is wriggling. He started off with average measures of council tax, he went on to quote band D and now he is quoting band C. Is not this just further evidence that we are fast reaching the stage where the Government are incapable of telling the truth about taxation? In local government or national government, with the Conservatives one pays more and one gets less.

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Lady wants to see some high taxes in local government she should look in the mirror, for it is her party which is providing them. Of the 10 highest council taxes announced, seven are from Labour local authorities and none has been set by a Conservative authority. Of the 10 lowest council taxes announced, none comes from a Labour authority. Five of the 10 districts announcing the lowest bills are under Conservative control. Whatever the hon. Lady has to say, she cannot hide the fact that one gets a better deal under Conservative councils, that the services are better and that the council tax is lower. Though she wriggles from here to next Tuesday, she cannot hide that fact.

Mr. Knapman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his robust stance to date on qualified majority voting. Does he agree that it will be in the best interests of both the country and the party if that robust stance is maintained?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in the middle of negotiations that are important for the future of the European Community and for us, and I have no intention of being moved by synthetic efforts at pressure from any source. We shall defend the country's best interests in those negotiations and I am entirely confident that that can be done in an acceptable way without any question of delaying enlargement.

Mr. Ashdown: Why does the Prime Minister not realise that investing the £900 million necessary to provide fully funded, high-quality nursery education, available to every three and four-year-old in the country, is the best


investment that the country can make? Instead of raising taxes to prepare for tax bribes at the next election, why will he not invest to prepare our children for the next century?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he would raise taxes and he has made that clear.I hope that everyone understands that. We have made it perfectly clear that, as and when resources are available, we shall move towards further nursery education, towards universal nursery education. The reports that may have excited the right hon. Gentleman's interest earlier this week in one national newspaper were wrong.

Mr. Marland: As my right hon. Friend is aware, the report of the forestry review group is now in the hands of Ministers. As my right hon. Friend recognises, the Forestry Commission is included in the review. Not only by my constituents in the forest of Dean but throughout the nation, the Forestry Commission is held in high esteem. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, before any decisions are made in the light of the report, interested parties will have the opportunity to comment?

The Prime Minister: Of course we are examining the report carefully and will seek a good deal of consultation. We have the report, we are examining it and it will be some while before we reach a decision.

Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Austin-Walker: Has the Prime Minister seen the report today which shows that the response times of the London ambulance service have worsened since the Secretary of State intervened to sort out the chaos? In view of the inability of the London ambulance service to come anywhere near patients charter standards, does it make sense to close up to 10 of London's accident and emergency units—or is it nothing to do with him?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that, in terms of London health, we are seeking first to make sure that we have the resources for the improvement of primary health care, which needs substantial improvement in London. In order to do that, it is necessary to rationalise a proper hospital system. We have taken action—

Mr. Foulkes: Answer.

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will stop shouting and wait for the answer, I shall give it to him. As for the ambulance service, the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) will know of the measures that have been taken to ensure that a proper service is readily available.

Mr. Thomason: Has my right hon. Friend seen today's car production figures? Will he join in welcoming them? Does he agree that the Labour party, many of the members of which have car plants in their constituencies, has consistently talked down our motor industry, and Britain generally?

The Prime Minister: It is certainly the case that the motor car industry was in a very desperate state a few years ago. That has changed dramatically. The production figures this morning show that car production is up 6 per

cent. on a year ago. The British car industry is now a success story to an extent that was inconceivable in the strike-ridden days so beloved in the memory of Opposition Members.

Mr. Darling: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Darling: Is the Prime Minister concerned about the sale by Scottish Homes—a Government quango—of 1,200 houses, some for as little as £1 each, to a housing association chaired by a former Scottish Office Minister, an hon. Member who is now a Northern Ireland Minister? Does he agree that it is no surprise that many people believe that the Government are drowning in a sea of sleaze and secrecy entirely of their own making?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman has any firm charges to make, perhaps he should make them other than by innuendo and under privilege of the House. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was an unpaid, voluntary, non-executive chairman of the Waverley housing trust. He had no financial interest whatever in the trust. His involvement was solely to pursue an interest in providing new forms of social housing management involving participation by tenant representatives. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on his question and he should then offer a public apology to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Coe: In the wake of the recent tragic murder investigations in Gloucester, is my right hon. Friend aware of the welcome news this week that four missing people have been reunited with their families? Will he welcome with me and salute the superb work of the Missing Persons Bureau and the national helpline?

The Prime Minister: I had heard that welcome news. Out of the dreadful saga of recent weeks, it is at least one positive outcome that everyone can welcome. I certainly think that it shows how important is the work of organisations such as the Missing Persons Bureau. I willingly pay tribute to it and to the National Missing Persons Helpline, as requested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Livingstone: As a Home Office Minister said on Friday that the Government would not support the Racial Hatred and Violence Bill that has been prepared by the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth), and setting that against the background of the eight racial murders that have been committed in the past few years, how can the Prime Minister justify to the relatives of those who have been murdered in that way the fact that the Government can find time in their legislative programme to outlaw hunt saboteurs, but cannot find the time to tackle the escalating tide of racial violence to which my party drew attention this morning?

The Prime Minister: Every sensible person will share a concern about crimes motivated by racial hatred. That is certainly the position of the Government. As for the Bill,


we believe that the scope of the existing law is adequate, although we shall continue to consider how that law is working in practice. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is already a specific offence punishable by imprisonment for up to two years to stir up racial hatred. In addition, the full range of criminal law is available to deal with other crimes motivated by racial hatred. Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, for example, deals with low-level harassment. A range of measures is available. Of course we will keep them under review because there should be no place in this country for racial hatred of any sort from any group directed alt any other group.

Mr. Duncan Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on standing firm in his

negotiations on the blocking minority. Does not my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that if the Foreign Secretary chooses to stand firm next week, he will have the wholesale support of Conservative Members and of the country?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend will certainly take the position in the negotiations next week—at the moment, those negotiations are at an extremely serious stage—that he believes to be in the interests of this country, both in the short and in the long term. There are important interests, both short term and long term, to be safeguarded, and it is on that basis that my right hon. Friend will negotiate.

Business of the House

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Leader of the House state the forthcoming business of the House?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam Speaker. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 21 MARCH—Proceedings on the Insolvency (No. 2) Bill and the Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Bill.
TUESDAY 22 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Coal Industry Bill.
WEDNESDAY 23 MARCH—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Coal Industry Bill.
THURSDAY 24 MARCH—Debate on a motion to take note of European Community document No. 4616/94 relating to the common agricultural policy prices for 1994/95 and related matters.
FRIDAY 25 MARCH—Debate on "inner cities" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 28 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 23 March to consider European Community documents No. 10401/93 relating to the Green Paper on European social policy—options for the Union.

[Wednesday 23 March:

European Standing Committee B—European Community Document 10401/93 European Social Policy. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC48-iii (1993–94).

Floor of the House—European Community Documents 4616/94, Agricultural Price Proposals 1994–95. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report—HC48-xii ( 1993–94).]

Mr. Brown: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and the Government for agreeing to the requests from my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) for emergency legislation to enable the British Transport police to continue their essential work—something the Government forgot about when they first decided to introduce rail privatisation.
Will the Leader of the House find time next week, or at least in the very near future, to discuss the Government's spending plans, by Department? Each Department has now produced a statement of its spending plans. The total cost of the departmental reports is £267.75, and it would be a shame if we did not debate them. We have not had a debate on those matters since 15 May 1991. I hope, therefore, that even the Leader of the House will accept that such a debate is overdue.
May we have a debate before we rise for the recess on the imposition of value added tax on domestic fuel? As well as a desire for the debate, there is an important constitutional point involved. It is right that we should scrutinise supply for the Executive annually and not set rates of supply well in advance.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for debates on two other pressing matters: the regulation of privatised public utilities and the abuse of directors' share option schemes? May we also have a Government statement on investment in London Underground's Northern line?

Mr. Newton: On the last point, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt have noted that one of my hon. Friends has a debate relevant to that matter in the Consolidated Fund debates tonight.
I cannot respond immediately to any of the hon. Gentleman's requests for additional debates at the moment, although I make the point that the Budget debate was extended to provide for debate on public expenditure. I know that that does not answer exactly the hon. Gentleman's argument, but it is relevant to his use of 1991 as the last date that such a debate has occurred. I am tempted to observe that there would have been more debates on VAT on fuel had the Opposition got their act together at various times. There will be further opportunities to do so when the remaining stages of the Finance Bill are taken.
Finally, although there was an ungenerous barb in the hon. Gentleman's otherwise kind words, I am grateful for his comments on the Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Bill. I am also grateful for what I hope is an implied undertaking that the Opposition will be co-operative in allowing it to pass quickly through the House.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the business for next Thursday—as currently scheduled, it does not seem to be all that important? Instead, could we have a debate on Bosnia and the progress towards peace there?

Mr. Newton: I am not sure that those involved in the affairs of the British coal industry would take the point that my hon. Friend made. I certainly acknowledge the importance that everyone attaches to Bosnia and the pleasure that everyone has taken in the progress that seems to have been made there in recent weeks. As always, I shall bear my hon. Friend's request in mind, but I cannot undertake to provide time next week.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The eighth round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade is due to be signed formally in Marrakesh next month, so will the Leader of the House make Government time available soon for a debate on the importance of the agreement to British industry? The agreement is important, not least because the complex bilateral agreements need to be fully understood and a free trade agreement represents great opportunities for Britain; there is a great deal to be fought for in a competitive environment.
When will the Insolvency (No. 2) Bill, which is to be debated on Monday, be published and available to hon. Members?

Mr. Newton: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) as I understand that I misheard him, and he said "Thursday". I think, however, that what I said about the coal industry might apply to those who are interested in agriculture, who will regard it as having some importance. That view was implicit in the question of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), to whom I can answer that I shall bear in mind the need for a debate on GATT at an appropriate moment as matters develop.
I hope and expect that the Insolvency (No. 2) Bill and the Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Bill will be published tomorrow.

Sir Anthony Grant: In view of the clearly expressed wishes of hon. Members on


both sides of the House, has my right hon. Friend had the slightest sign from the Opposition Front-Bench team that they will co-operate in the implementation of the Jopling report?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know of the difficulties that have existed for some months in carrying forward discussions. There were debates on the matter at an earlier stage and I hope that it will not be too long before we can resume them.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is the Leader of the House aware that, because of changes in the criminal injuries compensation scheme, if the acts of attempted terrorism at Heathrow airport had succeeded, and people had been killed and injured, their compensation and that of their relatives would have been less than that for similar acts of violence and terrorism conducted in Northern Ireland? Should not we have a full discussion about the scheme, and the injustice that exists between different parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Newton: Without accepting the implications of the hon. Gentleman's question, may I say that I announced today our intention to make progress on the remainning stages of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. I have heard on the grapevine that there may be some on the Opposition Benches with ambitions to raise such subjects then.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House try to rearrange business for next week so that we can have a debate on the position in Albania, which, after 40 years of communism, has managed to achieve a level of debt equal to about one third of that achieved in the city of Birmingham after 10 years of socialism?

Mr. Newton: I may be able to do even better than that and, by turning the question round, say that those issues might be relevant to the debate on local government scheduled for later tonight.

Mr. Greville Janner: May we please have an early debate on the decision just announced by British Gas to close its headquarters in the city of Leicester, with a likely loss of up to 2,000 jobs? Should not the House consider how disgraceful it is that a once great public industry is no longer concerned with public service or its employees' jobs, but only with profits for its shareholders?

Mr. Newton: I clearly cannot promise an immediate debate on the matter. It is clear that British Gas has been performing a good job on behalf of the customer, which is ultimately what it is all about. There could perhaps be an opportunity to refer to such issues if the Opposition resumed using their Supply days to debate unemployment, which they have not done since unemployment started to fall.

Mrs. Ann Win.terton: Will the Leader of the House urgently review the business for Monday to enable the House to debate the blocking minority and all the matters that will be negotiated in Brussels on Tuesday, to enable hon. Members to ascertain how that will affect not only this country but the future of Europe?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can sweep away the two very urgent Bills that are scheduled for Monday, but

I can make the point that you, Madam Speaker, have scheduled an extensive debate touching on various European matters for this evening.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Leader of the House will be aware that his office fixes the agenda for the EC Scrutiny Committee of the House, and he will also know that it was one of his predecessors who gave us the job of scrutinising directives and regulations. Will he therefore tell the House why it was 16 months before an auditor's report that contained very important information about fraud in the Community, in relation to the environment, came before the Committee? It was debated on Wednesday morning. Will he also tell us what he will do about the fact that the members of that Committee were united in their objection to what happened?

Mr. Newton: I am aware, and have been almost since that happened, of the concern that is expressed. I do not in any way dismiss it. I am still inquiring into what happened. Part of the problem was that it was originally proposed that the report be debated on the Floor of the House and it was later decided that it would be more appropriate and efficient to debate it in the Committee.

Sir Anthony Durant: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to have a debate on terrorism, bearing in mind the fact that today is St. Patrick's day and that the Labour party voted against the prevention of terrorism Act on the very day that mortars fell at Heathrow?

Mr. Newton: I think that the decision to vote in that way at that time was inexplicable and I still have not heard any satisfactory explanation. I cannot promise a specific debate, but such matters may well come up during the debates on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Following the response of the Prime Minister to a question about nursery education, is the Leader of the House aware that the Secretary of State for Education took time out this morning at 8.15 to rubbish, in most uncomplimentary terms, a constructive report that was published today? Is not it about time that the Leader of the House provided Government time for the Secretary of State to come here and tell us about those matters? If he cannot find Government time on the Floor of the House, would it not be good to have a debate on the Government's objectives elsewhere, at any time?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has not made it entirely clear to what report he is referring, but it might be the one that was published today of an inquiry led by Sir Christopher Ball. I understand that, among other things, that report appears to have suggested a delayed start to primary education alongside an expansion in nursery education—not, I should have thought, an idea which would immediately appeal to everyone.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend will have heard the questions to the Prime Minister from my hon. Friends the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) and for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) and the question to himself just now from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). Does he not accept that the ability of this country to stand up for its own interests in the European Community is more important


than some of the petty legislation that is currently being introduced by the Government? Will he therefore adjust the business for next week to allow the House to have a debate on the minority blocking mechanism, which, when all is said and done, is about the ability of this country to stand up for its own interests? If "back to basics" is to mean anything, it is back to backing Britain. When will we have that opportunity?

Mr. Newton: I did indeed hear the earlier questions, and I have just heard my hon. Friend's question, which he delivered with great clarity and vigour. I also heard my right hon. Friend's answers and I recall that I made it clear to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) last week that our negotiating objectives would be pursued with vigour. I think that that has been clearly demonstrated by what has happened since then.

Mr. Tony Banks: May we have a debate next week on the enterprise culture, so that we can discuss a distinguished and rather enterprising old-age pensioner who had a very nice little earner going until it was spoilt by the carping behaviour of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), because of the absurd notion that the advertising campaign was based on a pack of lies? When did Ministers suddenly get sensitive about telling lies?

Mr. Newton: With his characteristic ingenuity, the hon. Gentleman turned a question about one thing into an entirely different point. The advertisement was obviously a matter for my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames.

Mr. Gary Streeter: Can my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on education to allow the Liberal Democrats to explain to the House how they will pay for their extra education spending pledges, which amount to £4.4 billion, by putting 1p on income tax, which would raise £–1.6 billion? Is there an inconsistency here that I am not getting? [Interruption.]

Mr. Newton: I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend's request. I think that the Liberal Democrats said that they had explained all that last week. The fact is that they still have not made their sums add up, so perhaps I had better look for another opportunity.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Leader of the House recollect that, on 17 February, he wrote a very civilised letter to me about bringing to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer my business questions on the costs of local government? Ought there not to be a statement next week from the Treasury about the costs that we are discovering in the Standing Committee considering the Scottish local government reform Bill, about the unanswered questions about Welsh local government reform and, I suspect, about the costs of Somerset and, indeed, Norfolk local government reform?

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the terms in which he referred to my letter. However, he seems to me to be pursuing matters that he is well able to pursue in the Scottish Standing Committee of which he is a member. I am sure that that is what he will continue to do.

Mr. Keith Mans: Will my right hon. Friend arrange time next week for us to discuss the number of properties in council ownership that are empty, and particularly the close correlation between the number empty, socialist-controlled councils, the amount of debt that those councils have and the amount of homelessness that they have?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes some very good points. He, too, may wish to have his attention drawn to the debate on local government that is scheduled for later tonight.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week about the agreement reached on Norway's proposed accession to the European Union and its implications for the common fisheries policy? Does he realise that there appear to be about 15 different interpretations of what was agreed on the fisheries policy with Norway, not least of which seems to involve strange species called the accelerated cohesion cod and the paper haddock? Does he not understand that, in fishing communities such as mine, people have a right to know exactly what has been agreed on accession to the North sea?

Mr. Newton: I, too, had some difficulty with the concept of cohesion cod when it first crossed my path. I am sure that, at the appropriate time, everything will be made clear. I cannot promise a specific statement next week.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on an urgent matter raised with me by Chesham chamber of trade—the erosion by out-of-town retailers of the businesses of our small shopkeepers in our town high streets? In the light of planning policy guidance note 13, issued on 15 March by the Secretary of State for the Environment, which seemed to recognise some of the difficulties and problems, I should be most grateful if time could be put aside for such a debate before my small shopkeepers in Chesham suffer further.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend keeps me closely in touch with the concerns of the shopkeepers in Chesham town centre and their chamber of commerce. I note carefully what she says about PPG 13. Although I cannot undertake to provide time for a debate, I will ensure that the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is drawn to her remarks.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Has the Leader of the House had time to read early-day motion 852?
[That this House is deeply concerned at the parliamentary answer given to the honourable Member for Islington North on 14th March that 61 detainees at detention centres have refused food for at least three days in the past year; is alarmed at reports of hunger strikes amongst detainees at Campsfield Detention Centre; and calls for an urgent statement on this by Home Secretary and an understanding that the grievances of hunger striking asylum seekers will be examined and that there will be no force-feeding.]
It concerns the hunger strikes among asylum seekers at the Campsfield detention centre and the reports that have been received that a number of those who took hunger strike action to draw attention to their plight have since been moved to prisons. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Home Secretary to make a detailed statement in the House about the number of people seeking


asylum in this country who are held in custody, why they are held in custody and what desperation they have been driven to, causing them to go on hunger strike to try to get their cases resolved? Those people fled from oppression in the first place and sought freedom and liberty in this country.

Mr. Newton: I will, of course, bring that request to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that only a tiny minority of asylum seekers are detained, on the basis of there being good grounds for thinking that they might abscond if they were released while their immigration position was being resolved.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate next week so that the plight of water charge payers in the south-west can be brought to the House and so that my constituents can hear at first hand of the excellent steps that the Government have taken to bring them relief? Would not such a debate also have the advantage of explaining to people that those charges were imposed by European directive, that the further we go into Europe the more those things are likely to happen, and that the two Opposition parties want to take this country further into Europe?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes some important points on behalf of his constituents. I am grateful for his recognition of the Government's strenuous efforts in that matter.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have some time allocated next week to a debate on the English regions? I have no objection to the significant amount of time allocated to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but time is not allocated to the English regions. We could then incorporate local problems, such as that indicated in early-day-motion 887.
[That this House recognises that with the electrification of the Leeds-Bradford, Forster Square, services, and adjacent lines, that new electrical multiple units should be provided; regards provision of refurbished third-hand stock as a kick in the teeth for frequently overcrowded commuters; recalls that the Government can allocate as much as £–7 billion for new war-planes but puts the comfort and convenience of travelling taxpayers in West Yorkshire in an inferior category; and calls on the Government to ensure that new rolling stock is provided, built in Yorkshire, as a matter or urgency and at a tiny fraction of the cost of one European fighter aircraft.]
New rolling stock is urgently needed for the electrified Leeds-Bradford railway and associated lines. The Government can spend £7 billion on new war planes, but cannot find the money for new rolling stock for the sorely tried and tested commuters in West Yorkshire.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have noted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will answer questions here on Monday. He might like to try to get that one in then.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Will the Leader of the House consider finding time for a debate to discuss Leicester city council's decision to take one of my constituents to the High Court to enforce a market franchise right which it owns but which extends beyond its electoral boundaries into another borough council? Given

that that will be abolished by the enactment of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, will my right hon. Friend consider investigating whether that is a great breach of Leicester city council's responsibility and ultra vires in the sense of the Government's responsibilities?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am not familiar with the details of that action and therefore cannot sensibly comment on it off the cuff. I will ensure that his question is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House find Government time to discuss the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which was carried by more than 200 votes to nil on Friday? It has gone into Committee, but is behind another Bill, which went through unopposed, but is now subject to scores of amendments tabled by Tory Members with a view to blocking this very important Bill for disabled people. If the Bill is to achieve its passage through Parliament, the Government must provide additional time. If the Leader of the House says that he cannot provide time, let us return one day early after Easter to get this important Bill through.

Mr. Newton: The Bill has gone into Committee. My right hon. Friend said that the Government wished it to go into Committee and to have it carefully examined there. That now seems to be the sensible course to undertake.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate to discuss Opposition Members' decision to vote against the recent uprating of income support and other social security benefits?

Mr. Newton: It was astonishing, and I hope that my hon. Friend will play his part in ensuring that all pensioners are made aware of it.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Will the Lord President refer to the Secretary of State for Education the crazy position whereby a child minder can smack a child, whereas a school teacher in, for example, County Durham, would be dismissed for doing so? The latter case is totally right and the other is absolutely wrong.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, like everyone else, will have noted the judgment yesterday. I cannot say what conclusions he will draw from it, but I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's conclusions to his attention.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on youth unemployment? The European Community is considering ways of tackling the problem, so we should have an opportunity to cite the fact that labour market flexibility and deregulation are the ways to lower youth unemployment. We should also be able to cite the example of Spain, which has 33 per cent. youth unemployment with the social chapter, whereas our youth unemployment is below the EC average and less than half Spain's without it.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is right to think that the comparison between Spain and the United Kingdom in that respect is striking. It is further evidence of the effectiveness of this Government's flexible labour market policies.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have a debate soon on Government standards? A poll in The


Guardian today shows that only 3 per cent. of the people believe the Prime Minister's claim that the Government operate under high standards, and nearly 30 per cent. believe that the Government are corrupt or are abusing their power. Is the right hon. Gentleman proud to be a member of a Government whom so many people consider corrupt?

Mr. Newton: I am indeed proud to be a member of the Government, because they are in no way corrupt. I am a good deal prouder to be a member of it than I would be to be a member of one of the Labour local authorities about whose exploits we have recently heard.

Mrs. Angela Knight: Will my right hon. Friend consider an early debate on the role of the district auditor? A report published last week by the district auditor on the connection between a company that supplied goods to Derbyshire county council and a Labour councillor who was a committee chairman clearly stated that two files had gone missing since the investigation started. Further evidence published yesterday in the local newspaper showed that the connection between the councillor and the company was much closer than he had previously admitted. In such circumstances, should not the district auditor reopen his inquiries?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that, if additional and important evidence has come to light, the district auditor will consider what further action he should take.

Mr. Max Madden: I appeal to the Leader of the House not to be so dismissive of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) about the United Kingdom's treatment of those seeking asylum here. Will he urge the Home Secretary to come to the House to explain why so many of them are routinely placed in detention or prison without any effective means of appeal?

Mr. Newton: I have already commented on that. I certainly did not intend to be dismissive of the hon. Member for Islington, North—although he does tend to phrase his questions in a way that invites dismissive replies.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the fact that there were six or seven questions in Prime Minister's Question Time today and in business questions relating to European matters that require debate? I urge him to have a debate on how the House and its Committees scrutinise the legislation and activities of the European Community. For instance, had we had a debate on the presidency conclusions after the Belgian summit in December, we might have noticed that a declaration in the original proposals tabled for enlargement of the Community stated that qualified majority voting was an issue which should be left to the intergovernmental conference in 1996.

Mr. Newton: I have indeed heard a number of questions on that and related matters, both today and last week, and I have replied to them all as best I can. At this moment, I cannot add to my previous answers.

Mr. Barry Jones: When may we have a debate devoted to the steel industry? May I draw to

the right hon. Gentleman's attention the predicament of British Steel plc? Does he know that its difficulties are created not by British Steel itself, but by the activities of our colleagues in Europe who are not playing fair? Steel workers at Shotton and throughout Wales are apprehensive about the possibility of redundancies. We should like a debate to learn what the Government intend to do to help the British steel industry.

Mr. Newton: Bearing in mind the fact that ours is one of the most successful steel industries—perhaps the most successful—in Europe, compared with 15 years ago, when it was one of the least successful, I think that the Government have already done a good deal for it. I cannot promise a debate, but I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's requests to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I back the call from the Opposition for a debate on corruption in local government? In particular, we would have the opportunity to raise the case of the quango contracted by the Labour-controlled Tameside metropolitan borough council, which has lost millions of pounds to the taxpayer and has employed many relations of Labour councillors and the like in Tameside on a scale that makes Monklands look normal.

Mr. Newton: As I have now said several times, there is a debate on local government late tonight—possibly very late tonight—and my hon. Friend may care to take part in it. It had occurred to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), whose debate it is, may have some somewhat similar points in mind.

Mr. George Foulkes: May we have a statement next week by the Attorney-General, in view of the astonishing situation where it now appears that both a Cabinet Minister—the President of the Board of Trade—and the intelligence services advised him against continuing the prosecution of three innocent men? As the Attorney-General has given strange advice on previous occasions, is it not time he gave a statement in the House so that hon. Members can ask questions directly?

Mr. Newton: I did not specifically notice whether the hon. Gentleman was here at Prime Minister's Question Time.

Mr. Foulkes: I was.

Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in respect of a large part of the what he has just said, in my view, he should not have repeated it.

Mr. Michael Bates: Has my hon. Friend received any requests from the leaders of the Labour or Liberal Democratic parties to use an Opposition Supply day to explain their policies on Europe, which involve surrendering the national veto altogether, with the consequence that we would be forced to abandon zero-rating of VAT on children's clothes and food?

Mr. Newton: Perhaps I should have observed to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) that one thing at least is absolutely clear: there will be only one party—the Conservative party—fighting the European elections on the basis of a British interest manifesto.

Mr. John Gunnell: May I thank the Leader of the House for his prompt action in answer to my business question last week? May I say how pleased I am that it is being turned into legislation next Monday, and how surprised I am that the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) do not consider it important to have constructive receivership?
Will the Leader of the House also turn his attention to the shortage of donated organs? Many people are waiting an incredibly long time for kidney and other transplants. Will he speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to see whether legislation can be introduced—I am confident that it would have a good measure of support across the House—for changing the system to an opt-out system instead of an opt-in system? There would be far more organs available for transplant and that would bring great savings to the health service and would considerably ease the lot of many sufferers throughout the country.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that his second and main point has been a matter of long-running debate against a background of strenuous efforts to increase the amount of organ donation. I am not sure whether I shall need to communicate with my right hon. Friend; with a bit of luck the hon. Gentleman may be able to do it himself when she is here to answer questions next Tuesday.
The first part of the hon. Member's question was characteristically generous and I am glad that we have been able to move fast. I hope that his further remarks this afternoon, alongside those of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), mean we shall get universal speedy co-operation on Monday.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the Leader of the House ask his hon. Friends at the Department of Health to make a statement next week on the failure of the regional health authorities to provide basic information in response to questions from right hon. and hon. Members? The Mersey regional health authority pumps out dozens of press releases each week, but I cannot get a response to basic letter inquiring about cuts in physiotherapy in the Countess of Chester hospital which serves my constituency.

Mr. Newton: As I have already said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be here on Tuesday and I shall give her warning of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I acknowledge the urgent need for the British Transport police legislation, but does the Leader of the House agree that the fact that we have to have it is indicative of the fact that proper scrutiny is not given to Bills that pass through the House?
Secondly and most urgently, will the right hon. Gentleman make available today the contents of the Bill, or at least the long title, so that those of us who take an interest in the matter and would like to ensure that the Bill is improved and watertight this time will have an opportunity to study its contents and, if need be, table amendments? I see a problem here. If it is available before tomorrow, hon. Members will not have an opportunity to read it, understand it, take advice from people such as the Police Federation and table amendments in time. Can it be made available today?

Mr. Newton: I will do anything that I can to help the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot make the Bill available today, not least because notice of it was not given. Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's points, he is among many to have pressed for urgent action to deal with a problem that needs to be dealt with by 1 April. That involves my moving speedily; that can cause difficulties. We will do everything to overcome them, and I hope that he will co-operate in helping us to do so.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: The Leader of the House will have heard the response of the Prime Minister in answer to my question on the failings of the London ambulance service. In that response, the Prime Minister alluded to actions that are being taken to remedy the situation. As the situation has worsened since the Secretary of State took some action, will the Leader of the House find time next week for the Secretary of State to come to the House to explain why her measures have failed, and what further action she will take to ensure that the London ambulance service meets the patients charter standards?

Mr. Newton: My understanding of the current performance is that an ambulance responds within 14 minutes 65 per cent. of the time, which compares with only 48 per cent. in September 1992. We have every intention of making further progress towards the patients charter standard of 95 per cent.

Points of Order

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your help and protection. Earlier we had questions about the British Transport police Bill. There is no guarantee that the Bill will be available in time for hon. Members to table written amendments. Can you give us some help, and assure us that it will be possible for manuscript amendments to be dealt with on Monday so that the Bill can be made watertight and improved if necessary?

Madam Speaker: The Chair takes appropriate action and is often sympathetic on these occasions. I will consider seriously the hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to put the record straight following something that I said yesterday, when I accused the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) of never having served on Standing Committees. He shouted across to me that I was a liar. I did not bring that to your attention at the time, because he is feeling rather sensitive about things at the moment and I did not want to cause him problems.
As a result of the hon. Member's comment, I went to the Library and made one or two inquiries. I understand that, last year, the hon. Gentleman did serve on a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments which had one sitting, which he attended. Therefore, I should like to withdraw what I said yesterday. What I should have said was that he practically never attends Standing Committees.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is true that I do not serve on Select Committees, because I believe that they are all part of the sloppy consensus in this palace of varieties. As for Standing Committees, you, Madam Speaker, and others, will know that I served on the Committee of a housing finance Bill, which lasted the longest number of hours in Parliament, and on many other Committees. The hon. Gentleman's research is still wrong, because just before the election in 1992, I sat on the Committee considering the coal Bill as well.

Madam Speaker: After those totally bogus points of order, we can move on to the Easter Adjournment debate.

Adjournment (Easter and Monday 2 May)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House, at its rising on Thursday 31st March, do adjourn until Tuesday 12th April and, at its rising on Friday 29th April, do adjourn until Tuesday 3rd May.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. John Biffen: The exchanges earlier this afternoon emphasised the interest of the House in Community affairs, and doubtless that interest is shown particularly in the context of the negotiations in Brussels involving my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary concerning voting within the enlarged Community. My right hon. Friend has my warmest and most full-hearted support for his stand and for the objectives that he seeks to secure. I believe that he takes the support and aspirations of all Conservative Members, not least because his successful vindication of his negotiation tactics has a real impact on our electoral fortunes in the European elections.
I wish to use this occasion to reinforce my support for my right hon. Friend, and to consider the form that that support should take. I believe that the case has not been argued in this country, partly because the Opposition have opted out of this debate.

Mr. Bob Cryer: That is not true.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend—if I may use that fraternal term in these narrow circumstances—is quite right: he and our friend the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) show a continuing and spirited interest in the subject. Nevertheless, in a party that purports to provide the next Government, we have seen total abdication in regard to this issue.
That is extraordinary. We know that the House's relationship with the European Community derives through the Council of Ministers: all the structures are related in that fashion. Indeed, the terms of the treaty could not make any other arrangement possible. We as parliamentarians therefore have a real interest in the future pattern, size and voting conventions of the Council of Ministers.
Some—my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is a good, robust example—have seen the issue in terms of national interest: they feel that possessing and exercising that vote in certain restrained circumstances enabled us to pursue a national interest that would not otherwise have been available. I accept that that is a fact. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield regards me as being decidedly at the "wimp" end of the Tory party; let me, however, suggest another reason why we should be so wholehearted in our support for the Foreign Secretary, and so anxious that he should maintain the position that he has adopted hitherto.
Our experience of the Community shows us that it is now generating an enormous amount of legislation. I cannot believe that that serves the purpose of the Community's supporters; all too often, it resembles a parody, generating endless aspirations to bring about uniformity across Europe, when it should be content with partnership. Within that structure there is a possibility of check and balance, in the sense that qualified voting of a certain character provides at least some check on the volume of legislation.
I very much agree with the Prime Minister that the issues now at slake are long-term issues. If enlargement is confirmed, I believe that it will generate more legislation rather than less; the check on the legislative cascade must therefore be kept as tight as possible. That is what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary seeks by means of the voting formula for which he has asked.
I consider this a matter of the utmost seriousness, which should engage the measured judgment of the Labour party no less than ours. I do not believe that the quality of the Community is improved by its becoming a bureaucrats' paradise, with the conversion of the powerful initiatives in the Commission's hands into an application of Community law on an unbelievably detailed scale, and an attempt to pursue uniformity to a degree that is wholly unnecessary for the ambitions of a wider Europe—the wider Europe represented by the current negotiations, which will be further fulfilled with the membership of Poland, the Czech and Slovak republics and Hungary.
I suspect that, as we move towards that position and have to reconsider the institutions of the Community, we shall begin to wonder whether it would not be much better in the long run to move items from the present Community structure to that of the intergovernmental conference. That is the structure that will enable a sensible repossession of national law-making and national sensitivities, and that is the true devolution that is inherent and, I believe, will eventually become inevitable if the Community can adjust to its wider membership ambitions.
I am delighted to see the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) in his place. He has been a welcome and innovative advocate of seeking to what extent we can repatriate the common agricultural policy. The hon. Gentleman is setting out on a long pilgrim's path, on which I will happily join him, so long as that is not too embarrassing for him in his constituency. We have been trying to reform the common agricultural policy from day one. It is only within the context of moving towards a more radical proposition that we begin to see at once why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is trying to hold a line—a line which has great potential for the future beneficial development of the Community.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am comforted by the right hon. Gentleman's encouragement, as I have great respect for his views. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the repatriation of the CAP—subsidiarity—could be extremely dangerous for this country in some areas'? For example, if subsidiarity meant a raising of standards and the equivalent raising of costs in areas such as animal welfare, Britain and its farmers would be penalised, while subsidiarity would reduce standards in other member states.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is already showing welcome recognition of the stony path that he is treading. He will face precisely that sort of difficulty. Any aspect of the European Community which has been conducted on the basis of idealism will also have been conducted on the basis of hard bargaining, often in powerfully contested situations. The hon. Gentleman is therefore right to say that we shall not achieve repatriation on the cheap. That is why it is far better for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to hold the line now, rather than thinking that we can haul it back during renegotiations in 1996 or thereafter.
We send our good wishes to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his effort to hold the line, as he has been doing nobly and valiantly during the past week. However, let us be under no misapprehension about the dangers of a bureaucratic Europe. Why do some countries fear a bureaucratic Europe more than others? The answer is in the issue of law enforcement.
Law enforcement reflects the traditions and character of individual countries. There is a different standard of law enforcement in Nordic countries and in Mediterranean countries. It is not just a battle for narrow British interests that is at stake, although, in deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I accept that British interests are never narrow. What is at stake is not just a purely national argument.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is arguing on a European plane, not merely for a British position within a European dimension, and I hope that he will be encouraged by remarks such as mine because he is fighting a battle which is worth—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: He is selling out.

Mr. Biffen: It is worth having a battle if we can debate with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). We could detach him for the purpose of the European elections and take him around as an example of the ghost of Labour yesterday. He is now the sole relic within the Labour party prepared to question any Community institution, and he is found sitting with his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Biffen: No, thank you—I have paid all my compliments to my hon. Friend.
We are appealing to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to speak for Europe.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I have an interest to declare, but not a financial one, in the two issues that I want to raise in this debate. Together with the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), I am joint honorary parliamentary adviser to the Royal British Legion. Both issues are of deep concern to the Legion and should be debated in the House before the Easter recess. At the very least, there should be an oral ministerial statement about each of them before 31 March.
The first issue affects war pensions and war widows' pensions and is thus a highly sensitive one for the ex-service community. I refer to the Government's proposals to legislate to amend the Service Pensions Order to exclude from entitlement many people now qualified for war pensions and war widows' pensions. Widows of ex-service men now eligible for war widows' pensions would no longer be entitled to their pensions under the amendments that the Government propose.
Let me give the House an example of the kind of case that will be affected by the Government's proposals to change the law. A service man who suffered extreme cruelty—indeed, who was tortured—as a prisoner of the Japanese in the second world war emerged with a smoking-related lung disease from which he died. He became a heavy smoker, having previously been a non-smoker, to alleviate the chronic stress caused by what


are described as his "horrifying experiences" as a prisoner of war; medical evidence was available to show that, in his case, smoking was directly attributable to the inhuman treatment meted out to him by the Japanese.
Like everyone else at that time, he was unaware that smoking could prove harmful. In fact, it was then very widely considered to have a beneficial effect as a tranquilliser and morale booster for service personnel on stressful active service.
No matter how conclusive the evidence of a direct link between an ex-service man's death and his resort to heavy smoking to deal with chronic stress on active service, his wife will have no entitlement to a war widow's pension if the Service Pensions Order is amended as now proposed by the Government.
Yet there are already some 60 cases in which war pension appeal tribunals have awarded widows' pensions where smoking, related to chronic stress during war service, was accepted as the cause of an ex-service man's death. This must be a very serious issue, more especially since many other cases are pending, and it is clearly one deserving of at least an oral ministerial statement before we rise for the Easter recess.
What is resented by the ex-service community almost as much as the intention of the change in the law the Government propose is the hole-in-the-corner way in which it is being attempted. No statement has yet been volunteered to this House. The only information we have so far received came in a written parliamentary reply to two questions that I tabled to the Secretary of State for Social Security. The reply said that the decision to smoke or drink was a personal one. It went on to say that the proposed change in the law follows a recent decision in the High Court and
would ensure that the legislation reflects the policy intention"—[Official Report, 3 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 840–41.]
What that means, of course, is that the High Court had found that the existing law does not mean what the Government thought it meant and that Ministers now intend to reverse the court's decision to avoid paying war pensions and war widows' pensions to some very needful people. If that is allowed to happen, the independent status of war pensions appeal tribunals will be seriously undermined, and that, too, is worthy of an urgent debate in this House.
Smoking dependency in consequence of active service has long been accepted in other countries as a cause of severe respiratory conditions, notably by the Australian Government after a High Court ruling there some years ago. They did not appeal against the decision of the High Court; they honoured its decision. Of that, Ministers here say not a word, just as they ignore the fact that it was only comparatively recently that smoking became recognised as a health hazard. But as recently as the mid-1970s, smoking was considered both safe and socially acceptable.
Billions of cigarettes were issued free of charge to service personnel on active service, and they were also available to them at heavily subsidised prices in the NAAFI. I myself was actively encouraged to smoke as the recipient of 200 free issue cigarettes a week while on active service in the middle east in the post-war years. As late as 1975, there were instances of consignments of cigarettes

from HM Customs being distributed to RAF personnel serving overseas and of cut-price cigarettes being sold in NAAFI establishments.
Another very disturbing feature of the Government's proposals to change the law is that the amended legislation will be applied retrospectively. I ask the Leader of the House to take special note of that point. In the case of any improvement in existing legislation, as he knows, the Government always refuse to make it retrospective; but when, as in this case, the Government's intention is to cease helping war pensioners and war widows, they do so retrospectively and without time limits.
As the reply to my parliamentary questions made clear, the Government's proposals stem from a recent High Court judgment in which their attempts to stop the award of a war widow's pension to the widow of a former far eastern prisoner of war were unsuccessful. The High Court upheld the war widow's entitlement which a tribunal had allowed because her husband's death from cancer was due to smoking related to service factors. The Government are understood now to be planning to seek leave to appeal to the High Court against other recent successful appeals by the widows of ex-service men where smoking was accepted as a factor of service. I know there are those on both sides of the House who will regard that as not only wrong but disgraceful.
The only circumstances in which the Government are prepared now to recognise smoking as a factor of service is when an individual became so mentally disturbed as a result of service that he was incapable of making a rational decision whether to smoke or not. But any war pensioner who is 80 per cent. mentally disabled and incapable of looking after himself is entitled to constant attendance allowance, thus ensuring that, in the event of his death from whatever cause, his widow will automatically receive a war widow's pension. Such cases are, in my experience as a former Minister with responsibility for war pensions, very rare indeed.
I hope very much that the Leader of the House will recognise the widespread concern to which the Government's proposals to change the Service Pensions Order give rise; that they will not repeat the now notorious mistake made in relation to noise-induced deafness for war pension purposes; and that we will now be given the opportunity of an early debate to persuade them to relent before it is too late. Not to do so would demean the House and cause deep distress to those who have one of the most compelling claims on our attention.
The second issue I want to raise can be dealt with much more briefly, since its importance is already being actively discussed by right hon. and hon. Members. There is an all-party early-day motion on the Order Paper about it in my name, which says:
That this House, mindful of the increasing needs of the United Kingdom's ageing ex-Service population and the many problems of younger members of the ex-Service community, in direct consequence of Options for Change, considers that there is now a pressing need for a Sub-Department of Ex-Service Affairs within an existing Ministry and with a designated Minister to be responsible, as the only fundamental and long-term solution for the care and welfare of ex-Service people and their dependants; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government now to respond positively to The Royal British Legion's urgent call for a sub-department to be established.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am very interested in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. The views that he is expressing are entirely cross-party, and he will receive


considerable support from both sides of the House. Will he please state the number of his early-day motion and the level of support that he has received for it? I am sure that, like myself as the Member for Macclesfield, most other hon. Members have had many representations from British Legion organisations. Naturally, those have been passed on, with endorsement, to the appropriate Minister in the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has worked long and hard to help the ex-service community, more particularly war widows. My early-day motion is No. 60, and it now has 172 signatories. It has been subscribed to not just by right hon. and hon. Members in both major parties but by members of all parties.
As of now, bits and pieces of responsibility for helping ex-service men and women and their dependants are scattered all over Whitehall. The Government act on the assumption that the Minister at the Department of Social Security who is responsible for war pensions is the right point of contact for the ex-service organisations; but the problems of their members go much wider than the Department of Social Security and, as we all know, in many circumstances the right hand of government rarely seems to know what the left hand is doing. In fact, there are times when the right hand seems not to know that there is a left hand.
In simple terms, what the Royal British Legion and other organisations that speak for the ex-service community want the Government to institute is a "single-door" policy that will provide ease of access to all Departments of State with which they now have to deal. They want not a new Secretary of State, but a co-ordinating Minister who, in my view, would not only make life easier for ex-service men and women and their dependants but save their organisations and the Government both time and money.
As war-disabled men and women and their dependants grow older—as the hon. Member for Macclesfied (Mr. Winterton) knows so well, the majority are now over retirement age—their needs multiply and their problems are compounded by avoidable delay. It must now be obvious to the Government that my early-day motion has not only comprehensive all-party support but, prospectively, majority support in this House. It deserves to be debated, and soon. I look forward to a positive response to both of the important issues that I have raised in this debate.

Mr. David Porter: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has raised important issues that affect pensioners. I should like to go a little further.
With a new financial and tax year about to begin, and with a coming summer of wartime memories for so many of our older citizens who lived through that period, we have perhaps even more reason in this debate to remember the debt of gratitude that we owe to retired constituents. The oft-quoted saying that the health of our society can be judged by the way we treat our elderly is still very apt. Whatever hon. Members think about how elderly people are treated, we can all agree that some common fears of the elderly need to be addressed.
Clearly, many of them fear the prospect of not having enough money. Those who are just above income support

level, those who perhaps had no opportunity to build up extra pensions or were prevented by war service from getting into personal pension schemes and those who have saved a little feel particularly vulnerable. Pensioner bonds, granny bonds, special rates for the elderly, and the fact that the home energy efficiency scheme and assistance with VAT on fuel have now been extended to all pensioners are all a great help, but for many the perception remains that they will or may run out of money.
Many people are told that pensioners do much better in Ireland, France or Germany. We can point out how difficult it is to make straight comparisons between pensioners in different countries, and we must ask questions about those countries compared with our own. Is the state pension normally a pensioner's only form of income? What health care entitlements and local social services do pensioners enjoy? What other social security benefits do they receive? What is the spending power of their income? Is the pension earnings-related or flat-rate? Is there provision for adult dependants? What is the qualifying age for receipt of an old age pension? On all those comparisons, British pensioners come out fairly well. At a time of rising life expectancy and health expectation, when the number of retired people is growing throughout Europe, we should take some pride in that fact, yet many still believe, or choose to believe, that they are the paupers of Europe.
The Government approach, rightly, has three strands—to increase the basic state pension in line with prices, to encourage private provision on top of it, and to focus extra help on the pensioners who need it most. Yet there is still often resentment on the part of many pensioners, and some go so far as to feel betrayed by today's society. To some extent that is a generational feeling, but it is fuelled by an understandable anger when they see people getting away with actions such as defrauding the social security system, attacking and robbing pensioners, and expecting and demanding everything, as so many people do.
We spend ever more on health care to satisfy the demands and expectations that we all have. We all want to live longer and better. We spend more on help with housing, with taxes and with residential care. That is all part of the system that we have built up over 40 years. People spend more, young and old alike, and they have ever more material possessions. Yet no matter how much we put into the system, it will never be enough. Medical inflation, advances in technology and public demand will always outstrip the taxpayer's ability to pay, so we are right to bite the bullet of some difficult dilemmas.
Questioning a common retirement age and fighting social security fraud are just two of the modest steps that we have taken so far. Even the Labour party is now saying, although not yet very loudly, that it may not necessarily be committed to raising pensions in line with prices or earnings every year. We have all come to realise that, if our gigantic health and social security budget is to be financed entirely out of taxes from business and from individuals in work, we are in effect taxing employment, and before long something will break under the increasing strain.
Any thinking about how to help the poorest pensioners in a more sustainable way is to be welcomed, and should be given proper public debate. If we all devote a little time to thinking that through in our constituencies in the short Easter recess, our time will have been well spent.
Pensioners have other fears, too. Both in our cities and in the rural areas, many fear loneliness and isolation. Scoff though many do at "back to basics" and basic family


values, the fact remains that when grandparents were acknowledged as an integral part of families and communities in a less mobile, more rooted society, older people's fears were not so great as they are now.
Pensioners also fear immobility caused by lack of physical health, which is why hip replacements are now so popular. Today's hip replacements are often second or third replacements, because the previous replacement has been worn out.
Pensioners also have fears about transport. To be fair, most local authorities, and local organisations and voluntary groups such as DIAL, Help the Aged, Age Concern and so on, do incredibly effective work in combating that fear. There is also new bus technology, and attention is being focused on accessibility. All that needs encouraging. I suggest to my right hon. Friends in government that tax-friendly encouragement is the most effective method.
There is also a fear of lawlessness and of disrespect for law and order generally. The fear of walking the streets and the feeling that one is not safe in one's own home are real enough, even if they are not always borne out by the crime figures. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill will help, but for many people I fear that the decision of the House against capital punishment will not help.
Focusing the Government's policy attention on families, on the difficulties of older people in getting work, and on any age discrimination will also help, if it translates into positive action. We have a tremendous natural resource in our older people. Why do we not use it more for the benefit of everyone?
Older people share our fear of being strangled in red tape and bureaucracy. The deregulation initiative will help there, even if it is only like a finger in the dyke trying to hold back the North sea. People will welcome any reduction in health service bureaucracy and waste, including the abolition of some of the health authorities. However, they do not welcome that if it is done badly, as in my area, where Waveney is being split off from Great Yarmouth and we are being lumped in with Suffolk. Older people fear that they will not be able to use the local hospital, the James Paget hospital, because it is just over the border in Norfolk. Again, it was a well-intentioned move by the Government but it has backfired because they ignored local fears.
Many older people are fearful of what we seem to be doing—Front Benchers of all parties stand accused of this—in giving away our sovereignty for an unproved, often unwanted, European ideal which sees us as the losers almost every time while the Germans and others, whom many, of these older people gave the best years of their youth to fight, seem to be the winners almost every time. For many, that is galling beyond belief.
In case my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench are inclined to dismiss the power of the elderly as well as their fears, I would point out that they need to be carried with us. I quote from a Help the Aged document, "Speaking Up For Our Age", published last November for the European year of older people and solidarity between generations:
For the record, the vote of the over 65s in the 1992 General Election split 49 per cent. Conservative, 31 per cent. Labour and 13 per cent. Liberal Democrat. On the evidence of specific manifesto pledges to older people, this is not the way one would have expected self-interested older people to vote. One must

conclude that older voters are not self-interested.
That is fair enough, but they are a powerful group. Let us recognise their fears and carry more of them with us as we move forward.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I was tempted to rip up my speech, follow the line of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and look at some of the problems facing the European Community, but that can wait for another day. There are more urgent questions. Similarly, I was tempted to discuss the issues affecting many of the residents of the south-west now, this week.You, Madam Deputy Speaker, no doubt have had your postbag filled with letters from those whose water bills have gone up yet again by 12 per cent. and look to double by the end of the century, having already doubled.
However, I decided that at this juncture there is an issue which does not often receive a hearing in the House but which deserves our attention. As it happens, it links with the concern that a number of hon. Members have already expressed about the fears and anxieties of the elderly, but not exclusively so.
It may surprise hon. Members to hear that it is 30 years since I became a member of a police authority. Hon. Members may think that I was precocious or enjoyed a misspent youth, but I was particularly concerned with rural policing and having then become a member of the Devon and Cornwall police authority for some years and done other things, I have continued to take a considerable interest in policing in rural areas. It would be helpful if hon. Members had an opportunity to discuss these issues rather more often, but at least I can take the opportunity today to touch on some of those with which many of us are concerned.
There has been a rising tide of crime throughout the country, but it has been particularly evident in some areas which previously we thought were immune from it—notably the rural areas. Many rural communities feel that the Government have abandoned them in recent years. They feel that their problems have been ignored and that, instead, Ministers have come up with headline-grabbing stunts, hoping for short-term political advantage. From my youth in a small village in the west country, I am reminded that the most effective form of deterrence is the presence of a constable living in such a village.
We had in the village a policeman by the name of PC MacPherson who moved round at a fairly steady pace because, although he had a bicycle, he did not often ride it because his spaniel could not keep up. The key point to us of the generation who might be concerned about such matters was that one never knew where he was not. The effective presence of the police constable and of his wife, a member of the Women's Institute, his children at the local school—he was also a member of the cricket club—meant that every part of the community had an immediate relationship with the guardian of law and order. That has long since gone, and initiatives by some far-sighted chief constables—notably John Alderson whom you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I remember as a most effective chief constable in Devon and Cornwall—have, sadly, turned the clock back only a little way.
In the past few weeks I have not only talked to our present chief constable and to many other police officers about this; I have spoken to magistrates, probation officers, neighbourhood watch organisers and even a prison


governor. These people, who know what they are talking about when it comes to preserving the peace and ensuring law and order, are the people who feel that "solutions" are being imposed on them. They feel that they are not being given an effective opportunity to contribute to the analysis of the problems. They are not being told what is happening, and they have only a minimal chance to influence the course of events.
Analysis of the figures shows that there are more crimes per head in rural police force areas than in urban ones, while rural police forces are undermanned and underfunded. To take just one example, in my own police division of North Cornwall we have experienced in the past 15 years—roughly the lifetime of the Government—a doubling of recorded crime, with a drop in the proportion cleared up. Yet during that period the Home Secretary has permitted only a 9 per cent. increase in the establishment of officers.
Police areas which are more than 50 per cent. rural have averaged a rise in establishment of only 92 officers between 1982 and 1992, while in the most urban—with 25 per cent. or less of rural parishes—the rise in the number of officers has averaged some 300. That is not as a result of the crime figures, which point in the opposite direction: the threat of crime in rural communities is higher. With fewer police per head and those police spreading their work over much wider areas, people living in rural areas are evidently more at risk.
I have some more figures. In your area and mine, Madam Deputy Speaker—Devon and Cornwall—we have one policeman for every 516 people. In Hampshire, the proportion is even worse, with one per 522 people. Compare that with Merseyside, where it is one per 306 people, and with metropolitan London, where it is one per 258 people.
Moreover, the logistics is more difficult in a scattered rural area and it is harder for the police to get around at speed. The present restrictions on petrol and on the use of cars must be lifted. The effects of the budgetary constraints are patently absurd. Avon and Somerset police authority has had to limit its squad cars to 35 miles travel in one shift. What they do in a sudden emergency, I hate to think. There is thus a vicious circle: scattered population, less easy to police effectively, fewer officers, reduced mobility, less effective policing. It is a major cause of the increase in crime in the more rural areas of Great Britain.
I give two other examples, Gloucestershire and Cambridgeshire, both required to protect important people. In the case of Gloucestershire it is the royal family; in Cambridgeshire it is the Prime Minister. Yet Gloucestershire receives no compensation for the resources which have to be diverted to that task, and Cambridgeshire actually loses 2 per cent. of its manpower permanently for the protection of the Prime Minister, without any compensation. The Prime Minister's police area, Cambridgeshire, is a good example of the problems that rural areas face. It has one officer for every 540 people, fewer officers per head than any other force, while having the third highest rise in recorded offences—almost 80 per cent.—since 1989.
People in Nottinghamshire are more likely to be victims of crime than in any other part of the country. Rural areas such as Avon and Somerset have seen crime increase by 75 per cent. in the lifetime of the Government. People in Humberside are among the most likely in Britain to be the

victims of violent crime; yet when their chief constable asked for 13 more police officers—a modest request—to tackle the crime rate, he was given none.
The Home Secretary continues to fudge the true test of his commitment to more effective policing of rural areas by refusing time and again to increase the number of officers to that which the chief constables accept as operationally required. The figures show that the rural forces have been left behind in terms of meeting their operational requirements.
On the Home Office formula, the Hampshire force should be increased by a further 223 officers. Last year, not unreasonably, the chief constable, using the Home Office figures, asked for an additional 200 officers. How many did he receive? Zero.
At the Christchurch by-election we Liberal Democrats were castigated for our profligacy in daring to suggest that the Dorset chief constable should receive 97 additional officers because he had identified them as necessary to his operational requirements, to meet the needs of the Dorset community. Later last year, the Home Secretary wrote:
we simply cannot approve every request for more officers which is made
by chief constables, and
it is of paramount importance that we maintain controls on public expenditure.
How much was the threatened increase in public expenditure? What was the huge amount that was threatened? According to the Conservative party research department, it was some £55 million—an interesting figure, as it is precisely equivalent to £1 per head of population in the United Kingdom. I wonder how many people would think that that was a price worth paying.

Mr. David Nicholson: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's contrast between the problem in rural areas and the problem in urban areas. I am sure that he will agree that the absolute levels of crime are higher in urban areas. I imagine that he is not suggesting a shift of policing from the urban to the rural areas. He has just stated his spending demands. His party has made spending demands for education, social security, health and many other areas. Has he squared all that with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)?

Mr. Tyler: I have indeed. I have looked at the figures for Northumbria. The investment of vast sums of money in new prisons and other detention centres is on a scale far greater than the cost of preventing crime. The cost of crime is one of the scandals of today.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman treat the House to the conclusions that he has drawn from his consideration of policing in Northumbria?

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, although it has put me off the tack. I was demonstrating that the cost of prevention is smaller than the cost of building all the prisons and other institutions that the Home Secretary seeks to impose on Britain.
The conclusion in Northumbria—I have the figures here—is that the rural areas show a dramatic increase in all types of crime. While I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) that historically the urban areas have high levels of crime in real terms, we are fast catching up, as he will know from his own


constituency. That is also true of the rural areas of Northumbria. There is no longer any great divide between urban and rural areas.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyler: No, I will not give way again. Some hon. Members will have seen recently that the problem of drugs and drug-related crime has come to the rural areas, where 10 years ago drugs simply were not a factor. I accept that other hon. Members may not have had that experience, but those of us who have followed the police authorities' work over the years have to accept that serious crime is no longer confined to the urban areas but has spread to all parts of the community.
The Government pulled a rather gimmicky answer to rural crime out of the hat at their party conference—the idea of bringing back parish constables on the 18th-century model—and I do not deny that there may be some virtues in that scheme. However, it would be a disaster if the idea were used as an excuse for keeping the regular forces below the required establishment and struggling to make ends meet. It would be even more of a disaster if it were used as a cut-price alibi for not investing properly in rural policing.
In many parts of the country—other hon. Members will have the same experience—we have an excellent tradition of voluntary support given to the regulars by the special constables. It would be most unfortunate if the new gimmick were used as an excuse to divert attention from the good special constabulary from which we have benefited in all parts of rural Britain and, indeed, in urban areas. With their proper training and their dedication under oath, they have given a great service to the community and should continue to do so. In some parts of rural Britain, policing simply would not be effective without special constables. Again, I can instance rural parts of Hampshire, where the use of conspicuous patrol cars has substantially reduced the rate of burglaries. What is so special about that is that it relies on the special constables who are an integral part of the scheme.
I know that some theorists believe that all the problems will be solved by simply locking up or threatening to lock up more people, but the practical experience of people involved in policing throughout the country is that the theorists are sorely mistaken. There is no such simple magic-wand answer. People are afraid of crime and of the fear of crime. The answer to that is more bobbies on the beat deterring criminals as well as renewing confidence in the community. That is not a simple solution either, as the Audit Commission has made clear, and it is not the whole answer. Yet trying to operate well below the establishment that the chief constable knows to be necessary clearly reduces the effectiveness of every department of every police force.
Between 1982 and 1992 the crime rate rose twice as fast in the most rural forces as in the city areas. That is a simple fact which I draw to the attention of Conservative Members, especially the hon. Member for Taunton. I know that he shares my concern. Meanwhile, the officer-public ratio is 30 per cent. worse in rural areas despite the difference in convenience in terms of policing logistics.
There is also a problem on the fringe of some city areas. The constabulary often has to pull out of rural areas for specific events or big problems in the town centre. The Bitten division of the Hampshire constabulary is controlled from central Southampton, so the outlying rural areas around Hedge End and West End have seen officers sucked into central Southampton to deal with specific problems. At those times, the chief constable has little room for manoeuvre if incidents occur in the more rural areas. If the shortfalls are not corrected, the trend towards less crime prevention, a lower clear-up rate and ineffective crime deterrence will accelerate.
Crime and fear of crime in the countryside are a serious problem not only for the elderly, to whom the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) referred, but for all of us. It deserves realistic resources, not just rhetoric. It may have been a shock to some Conservative Members to read the public opinion poll this week which showed that the Conservative party was no longer believed to have effective policies on crime. That is a direct result of some of the problems that have occurred in the more rural areas and the failure of the Home Office to provide the resources that we need.
On one side, we have the forces of dogma, myth and ideology drawn from the ranks of the theorists. On the other side are the forces of professionalism and practicality drawn from the ranks of the police, some of the Home Office advisers and those who understand what is happening in the rural areas. It is no surprise to find that the more realistic former Home Secretaries such as Lord Whitelaw are in our camp.
So where does that leave the present incumbent? Anyone who has ever admired that extraordinary architectural edifice the Home Office will know that it is a badly designed ivory tower. I hope that, during the Easter recess, the Home Secretary will come down from his tower. I hope that he will have time, if there is an Easter recess after this debate, to hear for himself from people in the countryside who are trying to cope with the rising tide of crime.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I want to take the opportunity of this Easter Adjournment debate to thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for his firm stand in Brussels on the allocation of votes in the matter of the enlargement of the European Union. Other have done so and I know that others will also do so in the debates that follow this one. I wish him well when he defends Britain's best interests again on Tuesday and holds firmly to his position, as he has stated he has every intention of doing.
This is a vital issue and the pressures to weaken—placed on him by the European Commission, France, Germany, other of our community partners and the Foreign Office—will be so great that he will need not only his good judgment but the knowledge that he has the support of most hon. Members, Labour as well as Conservative. He has the support not only of those of us who were sceptical about the Maastricht treaty and the assurances that it was not a step on the road to the federal super-state—which only the Euro-fanatics and the Liberal Democrats want—but of a considerable body of his supporters and admirers who voted for the Maastricht treaty believing that it would not lead to a supranational European federal state.


Those people were reassured daily that the powers of the Westminster Parliament would not be further undermined by concessions on the veto or on qualified majority voting. Those Conservative Members who trooped loyally through the Lobby in support of the Maastricht treaty knew very well that the overwhelming majority of people who sent them to Westminster had no wish to see Parliament's powers further surrendered to an unelected bureaucracy in Brussels, or even to a European Parliament, over which we in Britain have no control and only very little influence.
I know that my right hon. Friends the Leader of the House and the Foreign Secretary agree that the
principle is, and will remain, a simple one. Where we can work together as Europeans, we do so; where we cannot work together, for lack of agreement or where there is no need to do so, we are free to go our own way."—[Official Report, 30 March 1993; Vol. 222, c 170.]
I know that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House will acknowledge that
no United Kingdom Government of any political colour would agree to matters that we would regard as being of great consequence or which had a significant effect on our national interest being decided by qualified majority voting."—[Official Report, 4 May 1993; Vol. 224, c. 144.]
I know that my right hon. Friend would give that commitment on behalf of the Government.
I know, too, that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House will agree that
the Maastricht treaty marked the point at which, for the first time, we began to reverse the centralising trend, and moved decision-taking back towards the member state in matters where Community law need not, and should not apply.
I know, too, that that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House would want qualified majority voting on foreign policy issues to be permitted
only if all member states agreed by unanimity in advance. That is a double lock".—[Official Report, 19 December 1991; Vol. 201, c. 489.]
On such issues
it simply would not be appropriate or suitable, and we would not agree to it. The circumstances in which qualified majority voting can be used are set out in the treaty. There is no suggestion that it should be applied".—[Official Report, 19 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 119.]
It was not suggested that it should be applied to foreign policy issues. I know that my right hon. Friends will agree to those statements because they are the statements that they themselves and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers have made. They are only some of the assurances given to the House by my right hon. Friends as we debated those vital matters in recent months.
I respectfully remind my right hon. Friends in the Government of what they have said and of the assurances that they have repeatedly given to this House, because do not believe for one moment that they will want to eat their words. They will not want to go back on them or to betray their intention to resist further moves to weaken Parliament's sovereignty.
When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary goes into battle on Tuesday, he needs to know that, in honouring the Government's assurances—that there will be no extension of majority voting to other matters or weakening of the extent to which we have already accepted majority voting—he will have the support not only of the Conservative sceptics but the Conservatives who followed him nightly into the Maastricht Lobby. He may also have

the support of much of the Labour party. He will certainly have the support of the overwhelming majority of people who sent us to this place.

Mr. Tom Cox: I want to raise the subject of coach safety and seat belts. I expect that all hon. Members can recall the accidents last year involving coaches and the sad loss of life that followed. At that time, statements were made by Ministers and the Department of Transport. They commented on coach safety rules in this country and in Europe. I am sure that many hon. Members will remember the calls made at the time for much tighter controls on safety regulations and, in particular, for the compulsory fitting and wearing of seat belts.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House tabled early-day motions on the subject—it in no way became a political issue. The early-day motions—one of which was signed by more than 60 Members, including myself—referred to the injuries that occur each year in the United Kingdom. Some 4,000 passengers in coaches suffer injuries following collisions. Dangers face young children when they use minibuses or school transport.
Passengers were seriously injured in those road and coach accidents, although, thankfully, they were not killed. An interesting report published by the Consumers Association showed that 12 per cent. of coach deaths could have been avoided if the people involved in those tragedies had been wearing seat belts. I and other hon. Members, including yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, can doubtless recall our long discussions in years gone by on the compulsory wearing of seat belts in motor cars. There was great opposition to that, but I do not think that anyone would now dispute that the fact that car drivers and passengers are required to wear seat belts has saved a great many lives.
I raise the subject because we are approaching the spring and summer, when hundreds, possibly thousands, of coaches will come on to our roads, many from European countries. They will carry many thousands of passengers each week. A few months ago, following the tragic coach accidents to which I referred, we heard from the Department of Transport, but, since then, we have heard very little about coach safety or about seat belts. I am not saying that nothing is being done, but I should like to know, as would other hon. Members, exactly what is being done.
A constituent of mine was very badly injured in a coach accident and, two years later, is still critically ill. His family have left me in no doubt that he firmly believes that, if he had been wearing a seat belt in the coach, his injuries could have been prevented.
I have done some research, following my constituent's sad experiences. Two special types of seat belt could be used. First, there is a seat belt that is similar to the type that are used in aircraft, with which we are all familiar. Secondly, there is a seat belt that is similar to the type that are used in motor cars. However, I am told that each type of belt presents its own problems.
The type of belt that we are used to wearing when we travel in aircraft—one receives instructions to ensure that seat belts are fastened—would not be suitable in a coach because, sadly, most of the injuries that passengers suffer in coach accidents are to the spine or the head. That often results in brain damage.
The problem with the other type of belt, similar to the type that are used in motor cars, is the fitting of such a belt to an anchor point in the coach, because the present flooring of modern coaches is not strong enough for that anchor point to be installed. I, other Members and the general public would like to know the Government's thinking on that issue, because it leads to another problem. It would add substantially to the weight of coaches to fit the flooring to which that type of belt could be anchored.
In the past few days, I have asked a number of questions about bridge safety. I am told that there are weight restrictions on about 60 bridges in the United Kingdom. I will not go into detail, but coaches in Europe are heavier than coaches generally in the United Kingdom and, as a result of the age and structure of many bridges in this country, certain coaches, because of their weight, are not allowed to use those bridges. Therefore, the anchor point for what is generally suggested by experts—the car-type seat belt—would place additional weight on the coach, which in turn would not allow them to use certain bridges in many parts of the country.
I realise that hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to take part in this short debate so I will only make two more points. The first is about cost. We are aware that substantial costs will be involved. It would be interesting to hear from the Department of Transport, which is responsible for those proposals for improving coach safety and seat belt regulations, who will help to pay the costs. Will it be the Government? Will it be local authorities?
I refer to local authorities especially with regard to school transport, because I understand that there are special problems with school transport. For example, would each youngster travelling in a minibus or school coach be required to wear a seat belt? That, I am told, could result in considerable expenditure. Having said that, I do not think that anyone disputes the urgent necessity for that issue to be considered in detail.
I conclude, largely echoing my opening comments, that last year there were tragic accidents, both for adults and, sadly, for a group of young people, in minibuses. I am sure that we all want progress in that area, but we have had no statement for a considerable time. Indeed, we have had no debate in the House on that issue. I do not expect the Leader of the House to be able to reply to my comments today, but I feel that I have a right to make them.
I hope that, in the near future, a Minister from the Department of Transport will make a detailed statement on coach safety and seat belt regulations. Members of the House, many organisations who are involved with consumer affairs or car manufacture and, I am sure, the general public would like to hear a statement from the Government about their thinking on those issues.

Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Easter recess, I wish to make four brief points.
The first point concerns hospital radio. I have the honour to be the unpaid parliamentary spokesman for hospital radio broadcasting. Hospital radio has been trying to obtain its own frequency for a long time. As hon. Members know, it is the largest voluntary organisation in the country without paid workers.
Recently, the Radio Authority issued a consultative document entitled "The future use of 105–108 MHz." Comments on that document have to reach the Radio Authority by 22 April. All hon. Members have been written to on that subject and I am delighted to say that there has been a large response. It is a crucial opportunity for hospital radio to secure its own frequency. I hope that hon. Members will encourage Major-General Baldwin, chief executive of the Radio Authority, to choose option C. That offers a new network lattice of services. It is vital to hospital radio for radio stations to be allowed up to 10 km on FM.
The second point that I wish to raise is the Fenchurch Street line. It must now be about two years since I and other Essex colleagues made a disastrous journey on the Fenchurch Street line with the present chairman of British Rail. His manner and his response to hon. Members on that occasion was little short of a disgrace. Since that time, I and others have felt strongly that the Fenchurch Street line should be privatised. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to tell me when the announcement will be made about the privatisation of the Fenchurch Street line.
It is a great discourtesy to all hon. Members affected by the line—I have three railway stations in my constituency: Pitsea, Basildon and Laindon—that we were given no notice that Fenchurch Street station would be closed for seven weeks in the summer for engineering work. It seems to be a coincidence that the closure would take place in July, when the House will be in recess. No hon. Members were written to; no meeting was sought.
I happen to have to hand a customer newsletter, in which I am told:
We know this work will cause severe disruption for many of our customers, and we have looked at other options.
Severe disruption? The railway station will be closed for seven weeks. Some of my constituents have been told, "Take your holidays." I do not know how employers will judge their employees if they go on holiday for seven weeks.
All hon. Members who favour the privatisation of the Fenchurch Street line well understand that heavy engineering work has to be conducted, but we do not understand the cavalier attitude of British Rail and its great discourtesy in not consulting Members of Parliament about the difficulties that will confront their constituents in those seven weeks. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will convey my anger, and that of other Essex Members of Parliament, to the chairman of British Rail.
My third point concerns Essex county council. I and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House have the tragedy of sharing the consequences of the incompetence of the rotten, socialist Essex county council. The county council is a love affair between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats. They are disastrously engaging in power sharing. There is no area in which we have felt their wrath as much as in education.
I had the privilege of participating in an Adjournment debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), who touched on the matter of Hockerill comprehensive boarding school. Forty children from my constituency attend that school. The school wishes to become grant-maintained, but wicked Essex county council proposes to phase out the existing


boarding subsidy without giving transitional support, for which there is a precedent, if the grant-maintained application is successful.
Wonderful Barstable school in my constituency is a grant-maintained school. There are a number of outstanding insurance claims which were incurred when the school was under Essex county council. The council is now wickedly passing the buck to the grant-maintained school.
Chowdhary school in my constituency is a wonderful school, which is attended by 107 pupils. It offers a unique type of education which many parents in my constituency very much believe suits their children. Again, Essex county council—Labour and the Liberal Democrats together—is considering closing this school. Yet the chairman of the governors, who stood as a Liberal Democrat candidate against one of my Conservative county councillors—I am pleased to say that he was defeated—is campaigning to save the school, although it is Essex county council, with Labour and the Liberal Democrats working together, which wants to close the school. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will reflect on that.
Wonderful Lee Chapel South primary school in my constituency has now suffered the removal of the lollipop lady. Parents are. rightly outraged at this, which is a matter for Essex county council and the police. This Monday, I acted as the lollipop man. If I have time in future, I shall join other parents protesting outside the school and asking that the lollipop person be restored.
My fourth point concerns sex selection. Last February, I introduced a ten-minute Bill which would have prohibited sex selection. A number of feminist Members of Parliament opposed the Bill and it was defeated by 18 votes. If we are to believe newspaper comments, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has said—I do not know whether he was quoted accurately—that he is not in favour of sex selection.
This morning, I took part in a television programme, which was the first opportunity for me to debate the matter with the owner of the grubby little sex selection clinic in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst). The owner of the clinic had the gall to say that the people who use his services sign a piece of paper agreeing that, if the wrong implantation is made, they will not be allowed an abortion. Emotively, a number of people who were receiving the treatment were present with him in the television studio.
What the clinic owner does not tell the people who are receiving the treatment is that it costs £650 on the first occasion, another £450 on the second occasion and more on subsequent occasions. This is the worst kind of commercialism. I believe that the overwhelming majority of people are against the principle of purchasing the sex of one's child. Above all, the nonsense of the practice is that the clinic itself claims only a 50 per cent. success rate. Is the man mad? There is a 50 per cent. chance of having a boy or girl, regardless.
I hope that every child, regardless of sex, is loved. The overwhelming majority of people, when they experience the joy of a new life, are not bothered about the sex of the child as long as it is healthy. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will reflect carefully on my correspondence with Department of Health Ministers on the subject and on the response given to me after my ten-minute Bill.
I was told by hon. Members that I should not have had the arrogance to introduce the Bill, but that I should have waited for the report from the committee considering the matter. I have waited. The committee reported that it certainly would not license the practice in its own clinics. When the managers of the British Medical Association said that they were in favour of the practice, their members came out against it. The Labour party spokesman on health, the hon. Member for Brightside, is against it. The BMA is against it and the committee is against it. What do my Government intend to do?

Mr. Ken Maginnis: On 15 December 1993, after long deliberations, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic, Mr. Reynolds, signed the Downing street declaration. They predicted that it was the basis on which the two Governments would be able to initiate a peace process. Mr. Reynolds went further when he declared that he would not sign the document unless he had confidence that it would achieve acceptance by the IRA and deliver a cessation of violence by Christmas.
The great suspicion among the Unionist community, based on years of experience, is that anything to which the Republic puts its hand in respect of Northern Ireland is frequently devious and intended to undermine. That is a sad and unfortunate reality, which is not always recognised on this side of the Irish sea. Yet for us to have decided summarily to reject the declaration would without doubt have been judged harshly in the House. It would have been claimed that we had thwarted the opportunity to provide the IRA with the means to move from violence to democracy.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, I make it clear that neither I nor the party that I represent has even the slightest obligation to let the IRA off the hook, but we recognise our responsibility to 90 per cent. or thereabouts of our community who have a real desire for peace. That community, of course, has for the past 25 years made it clear that it cannot be peace at any price. The Government must be no less resolute, assiduous and honourable on that point.
If the declaration had succeeded, that would have been fine. Ulster Unionists, unlike another Unionist party, do not require the community to be kept in fear and trepidation to provide it with a raison d'être. Scaremongering to build up European election credibility is hardly going to save Ulster. What was necessary was that Ulster Unionists should carefully monitor the process, ensuring that what had been agreed was not given a new interpretation to accommodate those who were able to bring violence into the equation. After 25 years, we knew the IRA well enough to believe that the declaration would self-destruct under the pressure that it would bring to bear.
There is a major aspect of the declaration to which Ulster Unionists take serious exception, which is the totally unjustified assumption that, some day, the people of Northern Ireland will inevitably wish to become part of a united Ireland. The assumption is fundamentally incorrect, both now and for the foreseeable future. That is not Ulster Unionist intransigence, but the freely expressed will of the people of Northern Ireland. It is not a sectarian issue as those who glibly cite demographic trends would wish us to believe. Right across the community, there is a large


majority who, whatever they may presently consider to be Northern Ireland's shortcomings, have no aspiration to achieve a united Ireland. There is no popular demand for Dublin rule.
Despite its fears and past betrayals, the Unionist community would do nothing to frustrate the Government in their efforts to bring violence to an end, but the harsh reality is that the Downing street declaration has been rejected by Gerry Adams and his Irish Republican Army. We warned that that was so in early January, again when Adams went to the United States, and at the time of the Sinn Fein conference. Do we need to say it again? It does not matter now whether the declaration was a good idea. It was killed off by the Provos before the end of last December.
So where do we go from here? Absolutely nothing has emanated from the Provisional IRA to suggest that it is war weary. It still has more than 100 tonnes of Gadaffi weaponry in hides, mainly in the Irish Republic. While that is so and the Government permit the command and control structure of the organisation to remain intact, cannon fodder will always be available among the misguided youth. That harsh fact must be addressed.
Bluntly, there is no future in pandering to the IRA. We have all taken political risks in trying to point it down the road to political sanity, but without success. We cannot afford to waste the lives that have been snuffed out and the bodies and minds that it has broken. Nor can we offer any further sacrifice to its madness in the hope that those evil people will be redeemed.
So where else can we look for support in the battle against the men of violence? Anyone who took part in the 1992 Brookes-Mayhew process will remember the negative contribution of the Irish Republic's delegation, and will have reached the conclusion that there is virtually no scope for any Government from the Republic to enter serious negotiations with Ulster Unionists. They are constrained by their inability to live with the political reality of the 1990s and to move out of the myths of the past.
While there is no doubt that the men from Leinster house talk a good game and that those in the present coalition see themselves as being the strongest Government in the history of the state, one has only to recall what happened to Albert Reynolds at the Fianna Fail annual conference last year. When he was seen to question the worth of the so-called "Adams-Hume initiative", the backwoodsmen of his party rallied against him and we had a demonstration of the power of hard and implacable republicanism. Whether Albert Reynolds has the ability to differentiate between one part of his anatomy and another, he can recognise his Achilles heel.
Perhaps that is the reason for Dublin's inability to cope with the political reality of what Ulster Unionism means. There appears to be a belief, even among the more enlightened elements such as one might associate with Mr. Spring's Irish Labour party, that it is necessary continually to appeal for Unionists to talk. One never quite knows whether that is intended to create an aura of goodwill for Great British consumption or an impression that the Unionists are impeding progress. In 1992, Ulster Unionists did everything in their power to get the Dublin Government to talk and found that they had nothing to say.
Even when we went to Dublin and tried to deal with issues that we thought may have been on their agenda, the Dublin team proved to be politically impotent. For example, Ulster Unionists tabled an outline for a Bill of Rights. That detailed document was promptly ignored by the Irish. We later tabled a paper that addressed in practical terms the possible grounds on which a north-south relationship could be developed. The Irish delegation did not even want to discuss that, either. On the advice of his Department for Foreign Affairs, whose officials hated every minute which they had to spend outside their comfortable little world of Iveagh house in St. Stephens green, Mr. Reynolds could do nothing other than rush his team back home and bring the process to an abrupt end.
Mr. Reynold's only reason for closing the door on those talks in which we had invested so much time and effort was that he felt that he should have a conference under the aegis of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I challenge anyone to examine the subject matter and importance of that conference to see whether any issue discussed was so significant that it merited the deliberate destruction by the Irish of the 1992 talks process.
It is time for the Government and, equally important, Her Majesty's official Opposition, to send a clear signal to the Irish that they are both openly committed to the democratic process in Northern Ireland and that, while it would be a welcome bonus to have the genuine friendship of a neighbouring country, it cannot be constructed on the basis of megaphone diplomacy or the variable activity that often articulates co-operation but seldom produces the goods.
For example, the Government of the Irish Republic have had more than eight years since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement to sort out their extradition procedures, but have singularly failed to do so. They knew of the flaws in legislation that they introduced several years ago but failed to do anything about it at the time. Now we are told that the problem has been resolved but that resolution is yet to be implemented. I stress that there will be no satisfactory extradition while the Irish constitution continues to incorporate the irredentist territorial claim enshrined in articles 2 and 3-mark my words well.
The idea that, by constantly whittling at our democratic rights, the IRA, the Irish Republic or anyone else will pare aware the resolve of the people of Northern Ireland to determine their own future is a folly. Ulster Unionists are not in the business of violence; we are neither half-hearted Unionists nor half-Unionists like the Democratic Unionist party, which toys with the idea of some sort of Ulster independence but which weakens Ulster's case by hollow rhetoric. By tradition and through the ballot box, we will maintain the British tradition of accountable democracy. I urge the House not to cast aside lightly that honourable objective.
The adage adopted in the 1992 talks that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" defines a foolish and elusive objective, as it sacrifices things that may be worth while now in favour of some utopia at the end of the rainbow. It asks, "How long is a piece of string?", and only a fool would hazard a guess. It is linked to that other cliché about three-stranded talks, which is another good way to create a vacuum rather than make progress.
Strand one is about the internal administration of Northern Ireland—that accountable democracy to which I


referred earlier. It cannot be delayed to suit the mercurial disposition of outsiders. It is wrong to condemn Northern Ireland to a state of limbo. Let us get on with it.
Strand two 'was about relationships between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, but that was where we found a total lack of reality. The Republic adopted the attitude, "We must talk first about what we nationalists want and, if we can agree that, we might—just might—talk about what Unionists want." In effect, that simply means talking about one thing: more. It is open-ended and destructive. Ulster Unionists have talked, can talk and will talk to anyone operating within the normal democratic process, but we might reasonably ask for some indication that there is a serious agenda, not just an intention to increase the aggravation.
Strand three is about the relationship between the two sovereign Governments. As the Prime Minister has been known to say in this House, that is not a matter for me. Ulster Unionists cannot dictate to whom Her Majesty's Government will talk. We can, however, caution that nothing can be agreed which would ignore the rights of the people of Northern Ireland. Only once democratic principles prevail and Governments meet their obligations to eradicate terrorism can we hope to make progress. Ulster Unionists will certainly not be found wanting.

Mr. Michael Bates: I believe that the House should not adjourn for Easter until it has discussed a matter of vital importance to my constituents. For this Parliament, which believes in free speech and in freedom of association, there can be few more repugnant sights than institutionalised apartheid. That is why we—rightly—took stringent measures against South Africa, where people were not prepared to play sports with other people because of the colour of their skin or because of their background. We repudiated that idea absolutely.
Yet it is with regret that I must report to the House that a system of apartheid is alive and well and living in Cleveland, where there is discrimination not on the ground of the colour of someone's skin but because of the colour of a person's school tie.
Macmillan city technology college serves the area of Middlesbrough and it has brought opportunity to many in that area. Its football team, reported the Darlington and Stockton Times this week, is about to win the Middlesbrough cup—without playing a single game. That is because it is the only team playing in the competition; no other school was prepared to play football with the CTC team—not because of any argument, not because of incapacity, not because there were no football teams, but simply because this is a city technology college. So the LEA schools have refused to take part in sports with it.
This is the worst sort of apartheid, because it plays politics with children. Those who took this decision are not the children or the football teams: these children probably live next door to each other. The fault lies with the sports teachers, the head teachers, the unions, the local education authorities, all of whom are backing this system of apartheid.
At one point we were told that the apartheid had stopped. On 21 May 1991, my predecessor, Richard Holt—a doughty fighter for my constituency if ever there was one—took up the issue in the Chamber, saying:
When my hon. Friend"—
referring to the Minister for Sport—

leaves the Chamber, will he pick up a telephone and ring the chairman of the Sports Council and tell him that he will not pay one penny piece to Cleveland county council until my constituent, Mr. J.G. Campbell, and his son are treated fairly? The boy, who is a captain of the Middlesbrough football schools XI, has been denied the opportunity to continue to represent his home town and possibly to go on to greater things in football because the mean, vindictive and spiteful Cleveland county council will not recognise the Macmillan city technology college for the excellent place that it is."—[Official Report, 21 May 1991; Vol. 191, c. 772]
Sadly, Richard Holt died soon afterwards, but in the ensuing by-election the issue was very much to the fore. Quite rightly, the parents of the children concerned and the press expressed their worries about the discrimination against a schoolboy whose only sin was that he wanted to play football for his town but was not allowed to.
Miraculously, during the by-election, there was a change of heart in the Labour party—perhaps it found the heat a little too much to bear. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the then education spokesman of the Labour party, arrived in the constituency in November 1991 to declare that he condemned this type of activity and discrimination. As a result, Cleveland county council apparently experienced a Damascus road conversion and the city technology college was allowed to join the Middlesbrough schools football association. The discrimination was supposed to end there, and the council took all the credit in the press for this change of mind. It claimed to have backed down on humanitarian grounds.
On 21 November 1991 my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Mr. Devlin), who takes a close interest in this matter, tabled an early-day motion in these terms:
This House notes with considerable satisfaction the decision by Cleveland schools sports council to reverse its mean and vindictive ban on participation in county sport by Macmillan college, Middlesbrough; further notes that this will enable the school to take on its neighbours in competitive sport and will enable talented youngsters to play sport for their town; further notes that this change of heart has only come about because of the embarrassment of the national Labour party in the Langbaurgh by election when they had previously regarded the matter with indifference, in spite of a Langbaurgh child being banned from playing for Middlesbrough; regrets that the school sports council made their recent decision only after great pressure from parents, the local press and hon. Members of this House; and further regrets that Richard Holt is not still alive to see this end to victimisation take place.
Unfortunately, it has not ended, as the press reports have made clear. The CTC is allowed to be part of the schools football association, but the unions, the head teachers and the governors are preventing the football teams from taking part in competitive sport with the children from Macmillan.
The Secretary of State for Education condemned Cleveland in the House for condoning this type of discrimination. That sparked immediate outrage and denials that any discrimination was going on. The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) felt moved to action, in the form of early-day motion 808, tabled on 10 March, just a week ago. It condemns the Secretary of State for Education for daring to suggest that a disgraceful form of educational apartheid exists in Cleveland. Little did the hon. Gentleman know that the policy continues, and that the people who are losing out are the children.
What sort of prejudices must be growing in the minds of the children in these schools? What will they grow up thinking when they find that they cannot play football with a CTC just because it is a CTC? It is all very strange. These people will have to answer for themselves.
There is, however, something that we can do in this House. The Labour education spokesman—or perhaps today the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on her behalf—can join me, as her predecessor did, in condemning this discrimination against young people. That is not to say that we cannot debate education policy in this House: that is only right and proper. We can debate CTCs, grant-maintained schools and so on, but the place to debate them is on the political field, not on the football field. The sooner that message is rammed home among the people blocking this sort of sporting activity in Cleveland, the better for everyone.
The strangest thing of all is that the chairman of Cleveland county local education authority committee, Councillor Legg, claims that he was not aware of the system of apartheid or that games could not be played by LEA schools against Macmillan CTC. He did say, however, that it was understandable that a team should not play another team, even though they both belonged to the same association, simply because of the colour of a school tie.
It is even more ironic that Cleveland county council's headed paper states that Cleveland county council is an equal opportunities employer. There are equal opportunities policies coming out of their ears, but what about equal opportunities for children who want to play football? Those children are not at a private school, but at a state school. Their parents are not council tax payers in a distant part of the country; they are council tax payers in Cleveland and they deserve equality. Cleveland county council should be ashamed of itself for daring to endorse that discrimination and prejudice against Macmillan city technology college.
We also need to bear in mind the legality of one school refusing to play football with another, not on the ground that it is not affiliated to a football association such as the Middlesborough Schools Football Association or the English Football Association but simply because it is a CTC. If one English FA-affiliated school refuses to play another, surely that casts doubt on the relevance of that association. If it cannot ensure free competition and fair play between its members, what is the point of having it? What can the football associations do about it?
There are some clear challenges here. The first is to Cleveland county council—the equal opportunities employer—to practise a bit of equal opportunity in relation to Macmillan city technology college. The second challenge is to the Labour party to confirm that it still condemns such discrimination on the sports field. Labour Members may, if they wish, continue to argue and debate the policy in this place, but they should condemn using children as political pawns.
There is a challenge to the English Schools Football Association. What can it do if one member refuses to take part in sport with another? Surely that raises a question which needs to be answered.
Above all, our thoughts should go out not just to the pupils and teachers of Macmillan city technology college who want to play sport and who are not prejudiced against other schools; they should also go out to the children at schools in my constituency and others in Cleveland county council who want to play football irrespective of people's background, the colour of their skin or the colour of their

tie. Those children want to play sport because sport is a good thing. It should not matter where people are from, what their background is or where they go to school. Democracy should be found on the sports fields of England.

Mr. Tony Worthington: That was one of the least convincing speeches I have ever heard from a party synonymous with selection, protection and isolation. I wonder just how many private schools play football with local schools. I spent my youth travelling around the wilds of Lincolnshire looking for other grammar schools to play against because the local secondary modern schools, which were also local authority schools, were not deemed fit to play.

Mr. Bates: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Worthington: No. It is traditional to mention the speech of the previous speaker.
I should like to use this valuable debate to ask the Leader of the House to find time before the Easter Adjournment to take notice of early-day motion 653, which has already attracted 187 signatures. It concerns the Government's closure after 1996 of the Commonwealth Institute. I ask the Leader of the House and the Government to reconsider.
This is exactly the wrong time to send out a message that the Commonwealth does not matter. In a world where there is too much racism and ethnic cleansing in many places, it is the wrong time for the Government to withdraw from an important Commonwealth institution—the Commonwealth Institute.
We should be building up the Commonwealth and its symbolism of multi-racialism. It is a largely democratic institution in 50 countries. One of the major divisive influences on the Commonwealth during the Thatcher years—South Africa—is changing. We hope that, after successful elections in South Africa on 27 April, the new South African Government will want to apply to join the Commonwealth, as Namibia did a few years ago.
I find it difficult to understand why so many of us who support the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association are not agitated by the Government's proposal to close the Commonwealth Institute in 1996. There has been a firm commitment and statement by the Government that they will withdraw the funding of £2.6 million—equivalent to expenditure on a secondary school—in 1996.
Closing down the Commonwealth Institute in Kensington will also close the Commonwealth Institute in Scotland and the regional centre in Bradford.
The Government expect that private funds will be forthcoming after the privatisation of the Commonwealth Institute, but Lord Armstrong, who they commissioned to carry out a review of the Commonwealth Institute, concluded:
I can see no reason to suppose that a private sector body could be found to take on the work of the Institute as it now is and in its present building without a Government grant".
The Government are showing a lack of commitment to multiracial values. It is a pity that, after what was probably the most positive Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting for years in Cyprus last year, where the right words were said about the Commonwealth, the Government should be planning to withdraw.
I am not suggesting that the Commonwealth Institute is perfect. In recent years, there has been a lack of impact, but to some extent that is due to the Government, as the grant to the Common wealth Institute has been inadequate and has been cut in real terms over the years.
The building itself is a major problem, the extent of which depends on what one reads—sometimes the Government say that it requires the expenditure of £8 million to £10 million, sometimes they say £3 million. However, there is a problem about the building, to which I shall return later.
There is also a problem about why solely the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has to fund the Commonwealth Institute. A huge amount of its work involves supporting education—in particular, the national curriculum.
There is a case for other countries to contribute to the work of the Commonwealth Institute. It is strange that there are no concrete links between the Commonwealth Institute and the Commonwealth Secretariat. Such links would seem logical, but the Government are in the driving seat. They should be looking at how the Commonwealth Institute has developed. Two of its trustees are the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education. The Government are represented on the board of management of the Commonwealth Institute and should have made sure that such problems did not arise.
Simply to step in and point a gun at the head of the institute is wrong. It would be wrong, particularly in Africa, given the difficulties that that continent is experiencing, for the Government to send out a message of withdrawal from the ideals of the Commonwealth. Most people would agree that we need that symbol of hope, of multiracial working together, stimulating good governance, trying to achieve a peaceful world in which the 50 countries of the Commonwealth can demonstrate that they can positively work together.
What is perhaps most difficult to understand about the Government's position is that the building in Kensington is a listed building. It is a building of some distinction but has been allowed to decay. It has to be restored and cannot be allowed simply. to close down. Money will have to be spent by the Government to restore it; but to what purpose? What alternative use do the Government have in mind for the building? In view of its location, it is difficult to see what planning permission Kensington and Chelsea council would approve. The area is probably the centre for museums in this country, and the local Conservative council would probably not allow it to be used for any purpose other than the present one. The local Conservative council recently condemned the Government for what they were doing.
In his report, Lord Armstrong said:
It seems that outright closure cannot be regarded as likely to generate any significant savings on public expenditure in the short term: perhaps even the reverse.
Instead of the Government working with the trustees and the board of management of the institute to make it a fully effective organisation, the proposal is to close it—the institute should be a beacon of light to the world—for no savings whatever.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Does my hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom's bid to host the Commonwealth games in Manchester in 2002 makes the issue all the more sensitive?

Mr. Worthington: I do. I know my right hon. Friend's interest in this matter. The Government are sending the wrong message on all kinds of dimensions, and this is one of them. It is difficult for Manchester to carry the conviction of the whole nation when the Government are pulling the plug on its bid. In effect, the Government are saying that they are not interested in the Commonwealth any more.
The Commonwealth Institute celebrated its centenary last year. It has gone through various changes during those 100 years. Every Government have said that they could afford first the Imperial Institute and then the Commonwealth Institute, but the present Government have said that it has no priority. I cannot see the financial savings, because the building has to be restored. I can see a major loss of the institute's functions occurring, but this seems an inept move politically by the Government, because primary legislation is needed to close it.
The institute cannot just be closed, because, under the terms of the trust deed from the Ilchester estate, the building and land are on a 999-year lease and can be used only for that purpose. Why are the Government seeking to do that, because I am sure that there will be significant rebellion in the House against it? I cannot think that the legislation would have much chance of getting through the House of Lords, because there are prominent defenders of the Commonwealth and the institute there.
Before the Government get a bloody nose through attempting to close the Commonwealth Institute, they should see sense and withdraw their closure proposal and start working with the board of management of the institute in order to give an effective message of hope for the Commonwealth and this country.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: It will not surprise you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to know that, before we rise for the Easter recess, I believe that the House should think again about the high-speed rail link as it passes through Kent, but particularly as it passes through my constituency in the borough of Gravesham, which has been afflicted by a multiplicity of routes during the five and a half years in which the matter has been under consideration.
You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, the statement in January by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, when he said that he had decided to omit Pepper hill, in my constituency, and Ashford from the safeguarding of the route. At that time, he was treated with considerable derision, particularly from Opposition Members, for making those omissions to the route. He could easily have said, with great courage and strength, "I have decided. That is it. This is the route from St. Pancras to the channel tunnel." But he did not, and we may well ask why. My right hon. Friend had the courage to refuse the proposal of Union Railways to tunnel beneath the houses of residents at Pepper hill. He instructed Union Railways to engineer up alternatives, particularly the route under the A2, at my request.
The route that was announced to the House last year skirted the entire southern edge of the urban area of Gravesham—Gravesend and Northfleet—all along the A2, but suddenly and inexplicably crossed the A2 and passed beneath the houses of the Pepper hill housing estate, which is on the far corner of Northfleet. It was totally unnecessary to bring misery to the lives of the residents. It was quite


clear to those residents and to me that Union Railways' claim at that time—that people living above its tunnel would neither hear nor feel the trains passing beneath—was unbelievable. It does not seem credible that a tunnel with high-speed trains passing through it, at a depth at its most shallow point of only 17 ft, would not have an effect on the residents concerned. Union Railways was adamant.
I called for a geological survey to be done immediately, which Union Railways would clearly need in due course with such a proposal. It took Union Railways three months to say yes. It took it a further two months to get started. That is five months gone in a six-month consultation period. That was why my right hon. Friends the Ministers quite rightly extended the consultation period in Gravesham to the end of 1993 so that the views of the residents of Gravesham, the borough council and myself could be given.
I am not a scientist. A geological survey could be produced with every manner of statistics, bar graphs and goodness knows what else, and I would not know what conclusions to draw. For that reason, I asked Gravesham borough council to retain specialists who could draw conclusions and state authoritatively, drawing on the data from the survey, to what extent, if any, the residents would feel vibration and to what extent there might be subsidence. Those consultants came up with proof that there would be vibration, subsidence and noise.
We laymen might say, "Surprise, surprise," but here was scientific proof, which I conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I argued that it was entirely unreasonable to tunnel beneath those people's houses when an alternative should be investigated. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's courage in saying, "No, I will not determine the route. Union Railways must go out and try to engineer an alternative."
Union Railways has now done that, and it has called the new route the 227. It involves the railway line continuing westward in its cutting, past Northfleet and beneath the A2, then passing into the Ebbsfleet valley slightly beyond the electricity substation. At last, Union Railways has done what seemed perfectly logical in the first place. It has presented my right hon. Friend with that option, which was revealed to my constituents only last week at an exhibition in Northfleet.
Since then, I have spoken to a number of Northfleet residents, particularly those living in Pepper hill. I was led to believe that they support the route, which would avoid tunnelling under their houses. My campaign for the route has the strong backing of the A2 rail action group—a voluntary group of local residents, led by Mrs. Celia Jones, who have put their case forcefully, democratically and steadily over many months.
I fully expect Gravesham borough council to give similar bipartisan support. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will draw the strong views of those involved to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. It is after the determination of the route that the preparations of our MEP, Ben Patterson, will come into force—that is, his efforts to establish the extent of the European Commission's support, in the form of funds for environmental protection in connection with the great transport infrastructure projects of Europe. I believe that,

even if the high-speed rail link is necessary for the transport infrastructure of this country and Europe, it should not be introduced at the expense of the environment of residents all along the route.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for paying close heed to the welfare of my constituents in Pepper hill. We look forward to a positive result from his decision to make an exception and hope that our MEP will succeed in harnessing the funds and the initiative of the European Commission for the support of my constituents' environmental protection.

Mr. John Spellar: I believe that the House should not adjourn for the Easter recess without discussing the serious abuses of human rights in the Punjab, and, in particular, the deplorable phenomenon of enforced and involuntary disappearances. The subject is especially relevant this week, because of the visit of the Indian Prime Minister.
I am sure that no hon. Member would argue for the encouragement or support of terrorism. The activities of groups around the world who try to advance their cause by means of intimidation, rape and murder are abhorrent and should be condemned. We should also acknowledge the importance of the relationship between this country and India. There is a long-standing political relationship and a developing trade relationship. We hope that those links were strengthened during the Indian Prime Minister's visit. It is also important to stress that India is a democracy—not the commonest constitutional form in that part of the world.
Even if we take all those factors into account, however, the activities of the Indian security forces in the Punjab cannot be excused. That is clearly of concern to many citizens of this country with families in the Punjab, but it goes much wider than that, especially as a result of a campaign by Amnesty International, which has drawn the problems to the attention of many other people here.
The most recent Amnesty International report, published in December last year, put it very well:
However provocative, the grave abuses committed by armed separatist groups can never justify the security forces resorting to arbitrary detentions, torture, extrajudicial executions or 'disappearances'.
I commend that report, and Amnesty International's continued interest in the area. Regrettably, its work has been frustrated considerably over the years by the Indian Government—who have refused access to the area—as have attempts to secure visits by other teams of independent observers, both from this country and from international sources.
Despite those frustrations, Amnesty International has managed to compile reports of torture and disappearances in the Punjab. Last year's report stresses that, each year, scores of people disappear in the Punjab from among the many thousands of political prisoners detained by the state. Some are detained under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act—TADA—regulations. Official sources say that several thousand more are held without trial under preventative detention laws in force in the Punjab.
The report goes on to describe the manner of the arrests. Usually, no explanation of the reason for an arrest is given and arrests are often not registered at the local police station. One can imagine the concern that that causes to relatives. Victims are often abducted by police in plain


clothes travelling in cars without number plates. When attempts are made to follow them up, many are found to have disappeared.
The report says:
State complicity in such practices is evidenced from a clear pattern of official cover-up. This involves officials routinely ignoring numerous letters … Cables from relatives to government officials reporting a 'disappearance' … go unanswered. Officials even go to the extent of giving contradictory statements. In court, police persist in denying that 'disappeared' persons were ever arrested … or simply claim that the victim 'escaped'.
The position was summed up by India Today on 15 October 1992:
Many of the cases of killing of militants as reported to the police, and dutifully carried by the newspapers are plain disinformation … The police have acted beyond the pale of the law time and again, and often in the most blatantly callous fashion. The police have devised many ways of keeping the judiciary off their back. One of them is proclaiming that a militant has escaped. He can then be kept in custody, for an unlimited period to extract information by whatever means.
Let me make it clear that it is to the credit of Indian society that officials—judicial officers—will sometimes expose wrongdoing, and the press will report it. It should be stressed that India is not a totalitarian state, although it may be acting as a repressive state.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the residents of the Punjab require the proper maintenance of law and order, and the proper control of extortion rackets and the like? It is even more necessary for the Indian Government to deal with their police force and army, so that corruption of this kind can be stamped out.

Mr. Spellar: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I thought that I had made clear the opposition of all hon. Members to terrorist activities, which he has just reaffirmed. I shall come to the Indian Government's failure to deal with abuses and excesses in the security forces. That, too, is an issue that unites hon. Members in all parties.
It is all the more regrettable that, rather than following up abuses when they are revealed, the Indian Government threaten journalists, lawyers and others who expose those abuses. Furthermore—as the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) rightly pointed out—concern is expressed about the responsibility of the Punjab police not only for actions in Punjab but for actions elsewhere in India involving disappearances and even shootings.
There is also widespread concern at the operation of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act. There is an absence of fundamental legal safeguards for detainees. Under the legislation, police can often claim that those who have disappeared have "escaped from custody." An even more worrying section refers to
any action taken, whether by act or by speech or through any other media … which questions, disrupts or is intended to disrupt, whether directly or indirectly, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India; or which is intended to bring about or supports any claim … for the cession of any part of India or the secession of any part of India".
That attacks not just terrorism but the right of free speech and political opinion. TADA has allowed detention for investigation for up to one year without charge.
We have seen the way in which that legislation has been used in repression of the press during the recent raid on the Aj Di Awaz newspaper and the arrest of its staff. That has been the subject of questions in the House and, I hope, of representations by Ministers to the Indian Ministers when they were here recently.
A case that has caused considerable concern in the House and has been raised by several hon. Members is that of Harjit Singh. He is featured prominently in Amnesty International advertisements and is related to one of my constituents. I also took an interest in his case because he worked for the electricity authority in India. In a previous incarnation, I was an official of the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union.
In April 1992, Harjit Singh was standing at a bus stop waiting to go to work at the state electricity board. He was surrounded by police who began jostling him. He was then dragged away. He has "not been seen since". The police firmly denied his existence and then said that he was killed in an incident with armed militants. They refused to produce his body. His father and other relatives claim to have seen him in prison, but say that he has since been moved on. That has put enormous strain on the family and is creating enormous pressures. In many ways, he has become a symbol of many who have disappeared in the Punjab. It is fair to say that the authorities have been obstructive, to say the least.
There is a reluctance to investigate or take action against those responsible. The hon. Member for Gravesham mentioned that, and it has been of concern in not just this case but many others. It was suggested that those who had perpetrated human rights violations should have legal action taken against them, but the director general of police said that it would "demoralise" the police force. The Chief Minister said that the Punjab police would not be "screened and cleaned up", as it would hamper "anti-terrorist operations."
That is not good enough. As I said at the outset, the entire Sikh community in this country is concerned, and we should be concerned, at that abuse. Whatever our views or whatever their views about the constitutional status of the Punjab, we cannot accept that breakdown of law and order. I hope that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have conveyed the concerns that have been expressed in the House to the Indian Prime Minister and his colleagues during their visit. We also hope that the pressure will continue to restore proper standards and bring peace to the troubled land of the Punjab.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) raised an important subject and I feel almost reluctant to move away from the problems of the Punjab and the weighty problems of national sovereignty to talk about a subject that is of no great moment in that respect. However, it is a subject that gets right up my nose and, I suspect, up the noses of many Londoners—the current state of London's roads.
An enormous amount of frustration is building up among Londoners as they see the chaos with which we are daily presented as we try to move painfully around the capital city. I am not necessarily a great devotee of a roads lobby, but the alternative of using public transport is not up to scratch, either. The buses are affected by all the other vehicles on the roads and, at times, the London underground system, rather like the roads, is approaching a state of near-chaos and collapse.
At times, it seems almost as if every road in London is being dug up, while every Thames bridge is being worked on. I know that that is an exaggeration, but it is the sort of


exaggeration from which I seem to suffer as I make my journeys on public transport or as I drive into the House each day. The impression one gets is that there is chaos all around us. There is no co-ordination and no one in charge. There is no one to get hold of and brutalise in order to expiate the enormous anger that builds up as one tries to go about one's lawful business.
It is not just the sheer frustration of sitting in a traffic jam surrounded by traffic cones, all of which seem to grin. I do not know why it is, but they seem to take on a life form of their own. In fact, we have become the world's largest exporter of traffic cones. We must be making an awful lot because I should have thought that we would be importing them, given the number that seem to infest our roads. What really gets one is that there is no warning about the traffic jam in which one suddenly finds oneself. It could perhaps have been avoided if one had been given an opportunity to re-route. One is not given that sort of chance. A road that one might have gone down in the morning has sometimes been dug up by the time one comes back in the evening. It is very frustrating.
There is little, if any, evidence of any common sense or planning being applied to those works. I accept that many of them are essential because they represent infrastructure investment. However, many seem to be, if not unnecessary, certainly carried out extremely tardily. Traffic lights are not rephased, and temporary traffic management schemes are not even considered or seem to have been devised by half-mad aliens from space. It seems that maximum inconvenience to Londoners is the objective.
I am assuming that it is not Martians who are responsible for what is going on in London.

Mr. Worthington: It is the Minister for Transport in London.

Mr. Banks: I should like to see that estimable gentleman spending a little more time concentrating on the problems of moving around London. I do not think that he is the only one responsible. I am ready to point the finger at any Tory because I blame the Tories for most things, including the state of the weather. However, I do not think that they are the only villains in this case.
Who are the villains? Essentially it is the public utilities—electricity, water, telecommunications companies and, at times, London Transport. The main villain seems to be the television cable companies. All those bodies have the legal right to break open the streets. Also, the work of private developers sometimes manages to spill over on to the public highway, inconveniencing those who are trying to use streets.
Those public utilities not only have a statutory right to break up the road but seem to take a perverse delight in doing it one at a time on the same stretch of road. The road is dug up, it is filled in and then someone else digs it up again. It does not make any sense and, as I have said, it causes great frustration.
The work on the roads seems to conform to the normal working pattern of the day. In other words, it starts at about 8.30 or 9 o'clock and continues until about 5.30, when everyone goes home. I do not believe that people should have to work unsocial hours, but many people are ready to work on a shift system. We should have more night-working on major road repairs and there should be

weekend work as well. Plenty of people are ready to do overtime, but none of the statutory undertakings seems ready to pay it. [Interruption.] I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) as he seems to be beside himself with enthusiasm to join in.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Has anybody asked my hon. Friend whether those road works were outside his own house at midnight?

Mr. Banks: I am glad that my hon. Friend made that point, because obviously such works cannot be undertaken in residential areas. He will recall, however, that emergency repairs to a collapsed sewer in Parliament square were conducted at a time convenient to right hon. and hon. Members. The utilities know to get a move on when they will be inconveniencing Members of Parliament, but there is no concern for the poor perishers who live in my constituency. The utilities can dig up roads in the east end, walk away and leave them for a few weeks. When they come back, the holes will be full of litter, but that prevents it from blowing around. But if works affect Members of Parliament, they must get on with them straight away. That seems to smack of double standards.
We have all commented on the enormous profits that privatised companies are making, so there is no economic excuse for their not completing works on London's roads as quickly, efficiently and effectively as possible. They are not short of a bob or two when it comes to shelling out for extra overtime. They minimise their costs on street works and maximise the inconvenience to Londoners.
I hoped that the Government would have included in legislation the recommendations of the Horne report, which was welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It was felt that the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 would have made some improvements. Far from it—the situation in London seems to have gone from bad to worse. I know that I am getting a little aerated, but I have been waiting for this opportunity. I keep thinking, "I am going to write to my Member of Parliament about this," but then I realise that I am my Member of Parliament. So I am raising this matter not only on my behalf but on behalf of my constituents and many Londoners.
Anyone who uses a taxi only has to scratch slightly to hear the complaints of taxi drivers, who often seem to question the parentage of Ministers, especially Transport Ministers. Naturally, I always stoutly defend Conservative Ministers. Despite the welcome that it received from hon. Members, the 1991 Act has serious defects—primarily, local authorities no longer have responsibility for carrying out street works on behalf of the utilities. The new Act gives utilities responsibility for works under the terms of a nationally agreed set of specifications.
I shall quote from the British Road Federation, which is unusual for me but it is in line with the advice that I have received from my borough council, the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities. Everyone seems to agree: only action is missing to deal with the problems. The British Road Federation says:
The legislation has been broadly welcomed and few expected there to be an overnight transformation.
That is an understatement, but we certainly did not expect it to get worse overnight. The federation continues:
Information about the daily activities of utilities is still very limited. This causes significant problems for local authorities if they are to achieve the inspection levels required in the regulations without incurring excessive abortive costs. The inspection fee is inadequate to fulfil the duties indicated by the


Act and highway authorities are experiencing a real increase in costs. There is also concern that the standards of reinstatement set may not be sufficient.
It can say that again. Good metalled roads are broken up by contractors on behalf of public utilities, only to be repaired in a slipshod fashion. Within a few days or weeks, they are reduced to potholed patchwork quilts. Such is the state of London's roads today.
The British Road Federation continues:
The co-ordination of street works needs to be improved. The duty to co-ordinate rests with highway authorities"—
local authorities. It says:
utilities have to endeavour to co-operate but it is not a duty.
I tell the Leader of the House that they do not endeavour much when it comes to informing local authorities, because it is not a duty. We have a permissive, lax system, and unless a requirement is imposed on the utilities, they will not take any notice but will laugh at us.
The federation says:
In many instances it is impractical to co-ordinate all the small scale works being undertaken. This is because the notice period for minor works is too short.
That may be so, but the delays caused by minor works certainly are not too short. The federation continues:
Co-ordination, therefore, is only happening on major works, where there is a minimum of one month's notice. The major area of concern is the belief that the implementation of the Act is adding to local authorities expenditure.
That is what all the local authorities and associations in London and, I suspect, throughout the country, whatever their political complexion, are saying. The public utilities simply cannot be trusted. The Act is not working as we intended.
We must address the problem, which is giving rise to enormous frustration and anger not only in me but among Londoners. I ask the Leader of the House and his colleagues to initiate an urgent investigation into the impact of the legislation and to seek ways to deal with the problems that we are experiencing on London's roads.

Mr. Simon Burns: I rise to ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether it would be possible to ensure that we do not break for the Easter recess until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made a statement on the important issue of the road building programme and on the problem facing my constituency—the proposed new motorway from the M25 to Chelmsford.
I remember sitting in the House soon after I was elected in 1987 and listening to a statement from the then Secretary of State for Transport on the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity". I thought that it did not affect my constituency or any of the surrounding constituencies in mid-Essex, but to my amazement I discovered that it recommended the construction of a new motorway from the M25 to Chelmsford.
Few people—commuters and those in industry and commerce—would dispute the need to have good road and rail communications throughout the country, especially in the southern and mid-Essex areas, offering access into the hinterland of East Anglia, to the ports at Harwich and Felixstowe and up into Norfolk and Suffolk. That is particularly true with the arrival of the single market and the opening later this year of the channel tunnel. Business, industry and commerce must be able to maximise their opportunities to flourish and to take advantage of improving economic conditions.
It seems to my constituents and me, however, and to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles)—and even, I suspect, to those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton)—quite criminal that a new motorway could be constructed from the M25 through the green belt and the small villages and rural areas of Essex, passing through Highwood in my constituency, on to Writtle in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree and back to the Al2 south of Chelmsford at Margarreting. That is virgin, agricultural and rural green belt land.
What puzzles our constituents is that nobody ever asked for this road. We do not want it. It is unloved and unnecessary and there are other ways to improve the existing road network into East Anglia. I cannot find many people in south and mid-Essex who are in favour of the road. All the local authorities reject the need for a new motorway. Certainly, my right hon. and hon. Friends with constituencies in the area reject it.
The excellent work done by the "Stop the M12" association has highlighted the anger, disgust and antipathy of local residents towards a new road through that part of Essex. The campaign that has been waged almost ever since the proposal first became known has been successful in that it has been able to sustain itself for a long time and to continue lobbying without splitting into splinter groups and to bring it home to the Secretary of State for Transport and other Ministers at the Department that nobody wants this unloved road.
Ultimately, we do not know whether the campaign has been successful because no decisions have been made or announced, but we shall continue to campaign and lobby until we hear from my right hon. Friend that the road is to be killed off and that the proposal will never see the light of day. I stress that the sooner that the announcement can be made the better, because it would remove the fears of our constituents and the potential blight of properties along the proposed route.
There is a problem as to what the route might be. Three suggestions have been pencilled or sketched in from the M25 to Chelmsford. For the past 18 months consultants have been trying to determine whether any of the three routes should be used or whether the existing Al2 should be upgraded. We do not yet have the consultants' report or the results of the public inquiry to go on. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is anxious to save on public expenditure. Some months ago, I suggested to Ministers at the Department of Transport that one way of cutting public expenditure and saving waste would be to stop examining the routes and abandon the proposal altogether, but they have not done that, so we must now wait for the report and the decision of the Department of Transport.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport the concern and desire to have an announcement, if at all humanly possible, before the Easter recess so that our constituents can have peace of mind and so that we can ensure that this hare-brained, unloved and unwanted scheme is killed off once and for all.

Mr. Roland Boyes: The Evening Standard of Wednesday 16 March carried the headline, "Victory for Right to Smack". I believe that that


is a tragedy for thousands of children. To a great extent, I blame the stupidity of Justice Wilson, who rejected a bid by Sutton borough council to outlaw smacking even with parental permission. It is an interesting dichotomy—who decides and what degree—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman really should not criticise a member of the judiciary—he can do so only on a substantive motion. Will he please bear that in mind?

Mr. Boyes: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
An important group—the Physical Punishment of Children pressure group—claimed that the decision to permit smacking went against Government policy, undertakings made by the Government and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Will the Leader of the House and his Cabinet colleagues look into the matter?
Let us imagine the serious consequences of the decision for social services departments. I was an assistant director of social services for Durham county council and I am well aware of the organisational and cash implications of such a decision. I make it clear that child minders and other carers should not, in any circumstances, smack, slap or shake children. We should not abuse our children in any way. I have managed to bring up two children—both of whom are now more than 30 years old—without finding it necessary to smack, slap or shake them.
Sutton council refused to register Mrs. Davis as an official child minder because she refused to sign an undertaking not to use corporal punishment, which tells us a great deal. Recently there have been a number of tragedies involving children: three children died in Peterlee and there was the famous case of Maria Calwell.
I deal now with schoolteachers. It is crazy that an unqualified child minder is able to smack a child but a qualified schoolteacher in county Durham, for example—my education authority—could and would be dismissed if he or she smacked a child. I believe that that is right and that the other course of action is wrong.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), given his experience before coming to the House, speaks with great authority on the topic of child abuse. He is also correct to draw our attention to the anomalies which the recent judgment creates. I am sure that the House will have to return to this matter.
If, in their drive to amalgamate Departments, the Government decide to amalgamate the Department of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Department of Transport, the Leader of the House will be able to pass the job of replying to debates of this sort to the new joint Secretary of State, because almost all the matters that have been raised in our three-hour debate relate either to foreign affairs or to transport.
The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) was joined by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) in praising the Foreign Secretary for the leadership qualities that he is displaying, especially when standing up to the shortcomings of the European Union. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to list

his criticisms of the European Union and to offer helpful advice to the parliamentary Labour party on how we should be probing European institutions. It is a debating device of long standing that those who wish to criticise the stance of their own party challenge the opposing party for not making the same criticisms effectively enough. The right hon. Gentleman gave the game away a little when he felt it necessary to make special mention of a point on which he agreed with the Prime Minister.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Moms), not only rightly but movingly, drew the House's attention to the plight of people in receipt of war pensions and war widows' pensions who will be affected by the Government's proposed changes. I hope that the Leader of the House, who is very knowledgeable on the subject, will be able to say something to set at rest the minds of those who are currently in receipt of such pensions, particularly those who were unfortunately tortured in captivity during the second world war. Those who managed to survive the cruel circumstances of far eastern prison camps, in particular, and who are now of pensionable age deserve to be at the forefront of the House's consideration. My right hon. Friend was quite right to refer to their plight, and I hope that the Leader of the House will say something to meet his concern.
My right hon. Friend also raised the question of our having a Minister in the Ministry of Defence to deal specifically with veterans' affairs and to co-ordinate the work of various Departments. This matter has been dealt with on previous occasions and is certainly worthy of consideration.
The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) called for help for the elderly. He outlined some of the problems that such people face and some of the things that the Government are doing to help. The assistance that pensioners are being given to enable them to carry the extra burden represented by VAT on fuel bills, while welcome as far as it goes, is not adequate compensation. The average pensioner household will still be £1 a week short. That may not sound like a lot of money, but it is a great deal for pensioners on small and relatively fixed incomes.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies had a look at the changes in the distribution of the tax burden for the period 1985–95 and found that the very wealthiest were better off but that everybody else was paying more, largely as a result of the shift from direct taxation to indirect taxation. Those with family responsibilities and the very poor were particularly hard hit. The poorest decile and the second poorest, into which most pensioners fall, were also hit particularly hard.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) drew attention—slightly implausibly, I thought—to the Government's record on crime. He failed to make any proper analysis of the growth of crime or to offer any genuine means of dealing with it, apart from his call for more police on the beat. Many of us think that the rather woolly liberalism that the hon. Gentleman seems to represent has contributed to the problem rather than provided a solution to it. [Interruption.] Well, that is my view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) struck a seasonal note as we move towards the holiday period. He raised the important question of coach safety and seat belts. If it is true that 12 per cent. of deaths


resulting from coach accidents could be prevented through the use of seat belts, such devices will have to be fitted, and funds will have to be provided for the purpose.
Time does not allow me to deal adequately with all the matters raised crisply—as always on these occasions—by the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr.Amess). The hon. Gentleman, as he often does, denounced Essex county council for being a rotten socialist body, citing in evidence of socialist repression the removal of the lollipop lady. That does not seem to me such a dreadful act of socialist tyranny. Certainly foreign countries have provided more ferocious examples in the past. Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman offered to do the job himself. Given the fact that his seat is a marginal one, although he has held on to it so far, and given the Government's current lack of popularity, I understand why he should be looking around. I wish him well in his future career, for which he is adequately qualified.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) restated his case on events in Northern Ireland. I do not feel qualified to make a full and comprehensive response. However, I can say that we all listened with respect and understanding.
That is more than I can say for the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), who drew a parallel between the revolting apartheid regime in South Africa and the refusal of some schools in Cleveland to play football with a team from a city technology college. I hope that hon. Members will understand when I say that the two issues are not the same—not in proportion, and not even in theme. After all, city technology colleges were intended to be divisive, and the hon. Gentleman should not be surprised if those who attend other academic institutions are resentful. That is clearly what is happening in Cleveland.
Drawing a parallel between apartheid and the question whether schools play football with each other is a wrongful statement of the case, but it is also particularly rich when it comes from: Langbaurgh. Like the hon. Gentleman, I remember the Langbaurgh by-election. I went down to help my friend Ashok Kumar, who won the by-election but, unfortunately, did not retain the seat at the general election. Those of us who took part in that by-election know that racism did raise its ugly head and that certain people encouraged it. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman invites me to join him in condemnation. I am happy to do so. I condemn racism, I condemn those who incite it, and I condemn those who benefit from it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) presented an impressive defence of the Commonwealth Institute. He was right to ask whether the Government have thought this issue through. Closure of the institute—this is what the Government seem to be moving towards—could cost rather than save public money. It seems to me that that would be a ridiculous state of affairs.
The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) added to the speech that he made in the debate when we last discussed an Adjournment motion by telling us of a concession that he had received from the Department of Transport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) returned to the question of foreign affairs with a very powerful speech in defence of human rights in the Punjab. He was quite right to put his speech in the context of our relationship with India, with which we have historic connections and very friendly ties and commercial

arrangements. He cited the Amnesty International report and condemned the disappearance of militants. It was very interesting to hear him make that point. However, he balanced his comments with references to the Indian judiciary and press and to the role that they can play in restoring government of a type that we should like to see—democratic rather than authoritarian.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) spoke for all of us who have to travel to this building when he referred to the frustration involved in getting through the traffic in London. Who is in charge? Who plans the various works? It is clear that the lack of an overall authority is disrupting the city. I know that the Lord President thinks himself fortunate that my hon. Friend defends Ministers when, travelling in cabs, he explains these matters to enraged taxi drivers. I am sure that he is a powerful advocate.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), having read the document "Roads to Prosperity", hoped that it would not apply to his own constituency. He called for peace of mind for the next general election. I expect that the Lord President will be able to give him some assurance.
I should like the Lord President to provide me with some peace of mind in respect of the Swan Hunter shipyard in my constituency. It is in dire circumstances. It is in the hands of receivers and could close, with the loss of all jobs. Some 2,000 direct employees and 2,000 people indirectly employed have already gone. There are only 600 manual workers left, but it is possible that at least their jobs can be saved if the Ministry of Defence commits a medium-sized order now. There is such an order in prospect, and it would certainly be the most welcome news for Tyneside if an announcement were to be made before we adjourned for the Easter recess.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I was put in mind, during the speech of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie—[Interruption.] I am sorry if I am mispronouncing part of the name of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I shall avoid referring to it and stick simply to "Clydebank".

Mr. Tom Clarke: It is the Tory bit that the right hon. Gentleman is avoiding.

Mr. Newton: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that was accidental.
The reference to the Commonwealth Institute put me in mind of the fact that, only yesterday, I spent a very pleasant hour with a large number of parliamentarians who are here under the banner of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
My task was to talk about the job of being Leader of the House. I ventured into most of the details, such as the business statement, the occasional difficulties of having to stand in for the Prime Minister at Question Time, the business of planning the legislative programme and all the rest, but I did not venture into trying to explain the arcane mysteries of the occasional debates in which the Leader of the House, having proposed that the House should have a holiday, sits here for three hours listening to hon. Members expressing, apparently with great passion, their desire not to have a holiday until a certain matter has been discussed.
The Leader of the House then watches the shiver of apprehension that goes around the Chamber when anyone suggests that he might accept those blandishments and withdraw his motion. Indeed, a distinct frisson passed over the face of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) when he heard an hon. Member say, "If we have a recess" rather than, "before we have a recess." I noted that carefully.
Many subjects were raised during the debate. Manifestly, I shall not have time to respond to them all. Where I am not able to respond fully, I shall ensure that the attention of my appropriate right hon. Friends is drawn to what has been said, and they will reply in other ways, as may be appropriate.
I am especially conscious of that difficulty because several Essex issues have been raised both by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), with whom I share some concerns, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), who mentioned some educational problems that are of concern in my constituency, too. To my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford I merely say delicately that I understand why he raised those matters, and that I have no doubt that many of my constituents in the Chelmsford part of my constituency would have wished to echo what he said—and also some of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon on education and other matters.
Let me now, in as good order as I can, deal with the speeches in the order in which they were made. I fully understand the reasons for the speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and the importance that they attach to expressing their backing for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I am sure that he, and indeed all of us, are grateful for that. However, I hope that they will understand that, after the exchanges during Prime Minister's questions and the remarks that I made during business questions both this week and last week, and as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in the midst of the negotiations, there is not a great deal that I can now add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have already said.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), in his capacity as parliamentary adviser to the Royal British Legion, raised two points, one about the recent changes in the war pensions scheme concerning deaths caused by smoking-related diseases or by alcohol-related diseases—it is perhaps important that that should be registered. Some of the same things could be said about alcohol. The right hon. Gentleman's second argument was about the legion's wish to have what he described as a sub-department of ex-service affairs.
On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I must emphasise that the legislation has been changed to ensure that the law reflects the long-standing policy of successive Governments that smoking should be regarded as attributable to service only where a disabling mental condition, itself attributable to service, renders an individual incapable of exercising personal choice.
The Government made some changes in consultation on the detail of the proposals, and I acknowledge that there is scope for some argument about how precisely the aim is

best achieved. However, I believe that people in general would accept that no service man was ever required to smoke, and I do not believe that any Government ever intended to compensate for the effects of a habit such as smoking, in the way that at one time I thought that the right hon. Gentleman suggested—although I accept that that was probably not what he intended to do.
As for a sub-department of ex-service affairs, the right hon. Gentleman will know of the Government's general view that it is right for important services connected with people who have been in the armed forces to be a significant matter for every Government Department, and taken into account in the policies of every Department. We believe that that is best achieved within each Department rather than through the kind of co-ordinating system that the right hon. Gentleman implicitly suggested.
The right hon. Gentleman will recognise a development with which I am glad to say I had something to do when I was Secretary of State for Social Security. In my judgment at least, the creation of the War Pensions Agency has materially improved the effectiveness of one vital part of the services that we provide for ex-service people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) made an impressive speech about the problems and interests of retired people. I cannot possibly comment on the very many subjects that he raised, but I shall ensure that what he said is studied with care.
The same goes for the speech of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), about rural policing, about which I could make one or two comments. I shall, of course, bring the speech to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, observing wryly in passing, however, that I now understand why the hon. Gentleman did not respond when he was asked to tell the House what had happened to crime in Northumbria—because that would not fit in with his speech. I understand that crime in Northumbria fell by 2 per cent. in the 12 months to June 1993—[Interruption.] Crime fell in Northumbria as a whole. As I have been reminded, there is a joint force.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), with characteristic courtesy—I am sorry that I was not able to be in the Chamber while he was speaking—said that he did not expect me to be able to answer all his questions, but hoped that they would be answered in some other form at a later stage. I shall do my best to ensure that that happens.
I have already made some comments about the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and I hope that he will forgive me if in the circumstances, especially as there will be further debate on railway matters later tonight, I do not at this stage attempt to respond to everything that he said. I take on board what he said, and note especially what he said about hospital radio—a matter in which I also have a significant interest.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) made some significant comments that I took to represent the position of his party and not merely his personal position on matters in Northern Ireland. I hope that he will have been reassured by the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) on Tuesday and assured him that nothing done or said by the IRA and its apologists would deflect the Government from our chosen course, and that the Government would continue to pursue a lasting political settlement through the three-stranded talks process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh made some comments that struck me forcefully, and I had much sympathy with them. The hon. Member for Clydebank—and that other place that I find difficult to pronounce—made some comments about the Commonwealth Institute, which I shall pass on, as I shall the remarks about the high-speed link.
Lastly, I come to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—I nearly always almost miss him. We all understand his frustration about street works in various places. Things sound even worse in his constituency than they are in mine. Perhaps he should change his Member of Parliament—
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic Adjournments).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 31st March, do adjourn until Tuesday 12th April and, at its rising on Friday 29th April, do adjourn until Tuesday 3rd May.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

BOVINE SOMATOTROPHIN

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8757/93 and 10761/93, relating to bovine somatotrophin (BST), and of the recommendation to prohibit the marketing and use of BST for the duration of milk quotas; and supports the subsequent Council Decision for a continuation of the existing moratorium until 31st December 1994, linked to a declaration that the Council uses this period to consider the implications of long-term prohibition and, in particular, experience of its use in the United States.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4911/92, and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 4th February 1994, relating to common rules for the internal market in electricity and natural gas; supports the Government's view that the Commission's proposals are the minimum acceptable as the second phase of the establishment of the internal energy market; and endorses the Government's objective of progressing to full liberalisation as rapidly as possible.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 40.

Division No. 170]
[7.09 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bowis, John


Alexander, Richard
Brandreth, Gyles


Amess, David
Brazier, Julian


Ancram, Michael
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Burns, Simon


Aspinwall, Jack
Burt, Alistair


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Butler, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Butterfill, John


Baldry, Tony
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carrington, Matthew


Bates, Michael
Chapman, Sydney


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clappison, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Boswell, Tim
Coe, Sebastian





Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Madel, Sir David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Maitland, Lady Olga


Couchman, James
Malone, Gerald


Cran, James
Mans, Keith


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Merchant, Piers


Dover, Den
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Duncan, Alan
Monro, Sir Hector


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Nelson, Anthony


Dunn, Bob
Neubert, Sir Michael


Durant, Sir Anthony
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Eggar, Tim
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Elletson, Harold
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Oppenheim, Phillip


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Page, Richard


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Faber, David
Rathbone, Tim


Fabricant, Michael
Rendel, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Forman, Nigel
Richards, Rod


Foster, Don (Bath)
Riddick, Graham


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


French, Douglas
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gale, Roger
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Gallie, Phil
Sackville, Tom


Gardiner, Sir George
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gillan, Cheryl
Sims, Roger


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Soames, Nicholas


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hague, William
Spink, Dr Robert


Hanley, Jeremy
Spring, Richard


Hannam, Sir John
Sproat, Iain


Haselhurst, Alan
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Hayes, Jerry
Stephen, Michael


Heald, Oliver
Stem, Michael


Hendry, Charles
Stewart, Allan


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Sweeney, Walter


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Sykes, John


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Thomason, Roy


Hunter, Andrew
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Jenkin, Bernard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Jessel, Toby
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Tredinnick, David


King, Rt Hon Tom
Trend, Michael


Kirkhope, Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Kirkwood, Archy
Viggers, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Waterson, Nigel


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Watts, John


Knox, Sir David
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Whittingdale, John


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Legg, Barry
Wood, Timothy


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lidington, David



Lightbown, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Mr. Irvine Patnick and Mr. Michael Brown.


MacKay, Andrew



Maddock, Mrs Diana





NOES


Ainger, Nick
Cummings, John


Allen, Graham
Dalyell, Tam


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Barnes, Harry
Dixon, Don


Betts, Clive
Dowd, Jim


Boyes, Roland
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Chisholm, Malcolm
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Connarty, Michael
Foulkes, George


Corbyn, Jeremy
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)






Hall, Mike
Mahon, Alice


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Home Robertson, John
Pike, Peter L.


Hoon, Geoffrey
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Illsley, Eric
Simpson, Alan


Ingram, Adam
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Spellar, John


Keen, Alan
Worthington, Tony


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)



McCartney, Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Mackinlay, Andrew
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skinner.


McMaster, Gordon

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Orders of the Day — Cancer

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Some weeks ago I received a letter from one of my constituents who had been diagnosed as suffering from breast cancer. She said that, once the diagnosis was finally established, she had received both the best of treatment and the best of support services from the national health service. However, she wanted to make a very important point. She detailed the length of time that her diagnosis had taken and pointed out that she had had considerable difficulty in getting some sort of treatment at an early stage as a result of problems of diagnosis and referral.
My constituent said that it seemed to her that Members of Parliament were concerned about matters that she regarded as not life-threatening, but when it came to something like the death of a woman from cancer—something which is, unfortunately, not altogether unusual—it was difficult to get Members of Parliament to take an interest in the difficulties that women face every day in trying to receive help. I thought that that must be wrong, so I sought the help of the Secretary of State for Health.
I told the Secretary of State the problem. I sent her the letter from my constituent. For reasons of confidentiality, I did not choose to raise the matter on the Floor of the House. I received a reply which is becoming almost standard from the Government. It was the equivalent of, "Don't call me, I'll call you." It said that the treatment of that particular patient was the responsibility of a particular trust and that was all there was to it. I received no explanation of the Government's views. I received simply a bald statement of what had happened in the case of that patient, and the Secretary of State's referral back to the health trust involved.
My constituent was extremely distressed by the letter because, as she pointed out to me, her letter was not a complaint about a particular NHS trust. She had undertaken that task. She had dealt with the NHS trust and had received a reply of sorts. She either accepted or did not accept what it said. The point that she made over and over again to the Department of Health and to Members of Parliament was that what was important was early treatment, diagnosis and referral of cancer. She had received neither an adequate response nor any idea of what the Government intended to do about any of those problems.
Therefore, I went to the Table Office and tabled a series of questions. discovered that the Joint Council for Clinical Oncology had drawn up a series of sensible guidelines because it was so worried about the whole question of treatment. I asked
the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many hospitals comply with the target of radical radiotherapy involving complex treatment planning within two weeks laid down in the guidelines…(2) how many hospitals comply with the target of urgent palliative radiotherapy within 48 hours laid down in the guidelines … (3) how many hospitals comply with the target of urgent radiotherapy or chemotherapy within 24 hours laid down in the guidelines…(4) how many hospitals comply with the target of intensive chemotherapy within one week laid down in the guidelines".
I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) the reply that
This information is not held centrally."—[Official Report, 7 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 83.]
That is outrageous. What is happening to the Government? Are they deliberately seeking to fragment the prevention and treatment of cancer by splitting up the market into individual small pieces? Are they seeking to hide the information that we need about the delays faced by those in need of cancer treatment? Are they prepared at least to comment on the targets that have been set for treatment waiting times? Or are they prepared to say, as it appears from the reply that I received, "This is really not a matter for Her Majesty's Government because the information is not held centrally"?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the hon. Lady agree that, in respect of the health service, the Government should be accountable at the end of the day to the House? If the Government have delegated responsibility to the National Health Service Management Executive, as they clearly have, surely it would not be too difficult for my hon. Friend the Minister to obtain a reply from the executive in response to the valid and important questions posed by the hon. Lady. If the Management Executive does not provide such information, it fails entirely to do the job for which it was set up, and the House clearly cannot represent the best interests of the people of Britain.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman, who was a most distinguished Chairman of the Health Select Committee, not only understands the subject well but is committed to improving health care in the national health service. I am afraid that he sets out exactly what the Government ought to do. The alternative is the type of comment that we saw in the Health Service Journal of 16 September 1993, which read:
People with cancer are having to wait eight weeks or more for treatment in some cancer centres, a report from the Joint Council for Clinical Oncology reveals. In new guidelines the council suggests urgent radiotherapy or chemotherapy should usually begin within 24 hours of seeing a specialist.
It is worth examining those guidelines carefully, because they highlight exactly what is wrong. The report is headed "Reducing delays in cancer treatment". The joint council deliberately highlighted the problems it saw, because it believed that
Delay in treating cancer is unacceptable. Its natural history is to spread locally and metastasise distantly. Whilst the reduction in cure rate caused by delay is difficult to quantify, the known biology of cancer and the published differences in cure rate…makes it evident that delay adversely affects cure.
That was said by people dealing with the problems of cancer patients every day.
In case the Government find it difficult to understand, the council has also laid out what sort of delays can get in the way of starting treatment. It says that sometimes there are delays in recognising symptoms of cancer. It says that, therefore, it is tremendously important that there should be better public education and more rapid referrals to specialist units. It says that there can be delays in progress through primary care to hospital. It says that the efficiency of administrative arrangements, including waiting times for out-patient appointments and investigations, must be reviewed regularly. Continuing medical education to ensure appropriate and timely referrals must be encouraged and, where necessary, improved. It says that delays in hospital before specialist referral to an oncology unit also contribute to the problems.
Already, within the NHS trust which particularly concerns me, we see clear signs that referrals to radiotherapy departments are taking longer and longer. I am convinced that the split into provider services and the purchaser theory, which is so relevant to, and redolent of, incompetence, is having a direct effect on the provision of treatment. Those waiting times are not even chronicled by the Department of Health and they are not available to individual Members of Parliament. Once upon a time, we would simply have tabled questions and asked how long people normally had to wait before they got an appointment. Such information is now hidden. We are told that it is a matter for the individual trust.
In 1992, the Royal College of Radiologists received a number of reports about delays in starting treatment that had been advised at the initial oncology consultation. Its faculty of clinical oncology carried out a survey of oncology centres in the United Kingdom and received 29 replies, in which 14 centres reported waiting times for radiotherapy of four weeks or longer. In several of those, the delay was of seven or eight weeks. Those delays were after a clinical oncologist had seen the patient and advised radiotherapy, so it was not that people did not know what treatment was required—the patient had been seen and referred by a specialist.
The report states:
Whilst there are recognised emergencies in cancer therapy"—
it mentions spinal cord compression—
the majority of cancer patients do not need to begin their definitive treatment within hours. The clinical situation, including severity of symptoms and the anxiety of the patient, should properly determine the arrangements made. In some patients a `fast track' to treatment will be needed with waiting times shorter than the targets
which the joint council set out. I shall place those targets on the record because I want some publicity on the matter. I want some action.
The joint council recommends waiting time targets from the date of the first consultation to the start of radiotherapy or chemotherapy. For urgent radiotherapy or chemotherapy, good practice is within 24 hours, and the maximum acceptable is 48 hours. For palliative radiotherapy, according to the severity of the symptoms, good practice is defined as 48 hours, and the maximum acceptable period is two weeks. For radical radiotherapy involving complex treatment planning, good practice is defined as two weeks, and the maximum acceptable period is four weeks. For intensive chemotherapy, good practice is defined as one week, and the maximum acceptable waiting time is three weeks. Those targets arose because the joint council had been told that people were waiting anything up to eight weeks.
I began to inquire into not only obvious cancer figures but cancers generally. Of course one is concerned about cancers that particularly affect females. The numbers of registered deaths from breast cancer in the UK were: in 1990, 114 men and 15,179 women; in 1991, 90 men and 15,403 women; in 1992, 98 men and 15,221 women.
The figures on deaths from other cancers show that the changes have not been remarkable. Despite changes in treatment and advances in medical care, the number of people dying has not altered a great deal. Even in my region, where there are considerable problems with industrial and lung cancers, one only has to consider the figures on prostate cancer to see what is happening to men.
The information given in a written answer in Hansard, at column 43 on 7 February 1994 shows that in 1988, 7,458 men died of cancer of the prostate and in 1992, 8,735 men died of that disease. In my region of Mersey, the number of deaths from cancer of the trachea, bronchus and lung in 1992 was 1,198 for men and 700 for women.
In what other situation could one imagine a House of Commons treating those consistent figures as a matter of little concern? What other disease or set of circumstances that killed that number of the population would be treated with that sort of superficial response? It would be difficult to find any other set of circumstances where the House of Commons would accept deaths in those numbers without taking urgent and immediate action.
It is clear that problems arise not only with breast cancer and breast cancer screening. A variety of screening methods can pick up cases of prostatic cancer much earlier. Does the Department intend to take any steps to develop a screening programme? There should be more fast tracking of patients with suspected cancers. The waiting list initiative which, whatever the Minister says, has distorted clinical priorities, could well interfere with the fast access that patients should have to screening facilities. There is no reason why general practitioners should not have much better access to screening facilities, such as ultrasound and CT scans. As far one can see, however, none of that is happening.
The House faces a Government who have adopted an accepting attitude. They seem to say, "Here is a major disease; we have done a certain amount, we have cervical screening and a certain amount of publicity. Of course, it is true that we do not spend anything like the amount on cancer education that we spend on glossy reports for NHS trusts or individual publicity campaigns for the Department of Health, but that should not matter to us because, after all, the people of Britain will not be particularly put out if more and more of them are faced with this problem in the coming years and nothing is done to assist them."
We should be concerned, and not just that my constituent has to write to me asking, "Why cannot I get a Minister to take seriously what I am saying?" We should ask ourselves why other constituents who have not written to hon. Members, but who are fighting fear and illness and, in many cases, major problems caused by poverty and illness, have not been given the voice they need on the Floor of the House. The Department of Health has not shown anything like the vigour and the campaigning in the treatment of cancer that has been shown in highlighting other diseases.
Why does the Secretary of State for Health, who appears to refuse absolutely to push hard for the banning of tobacco products, not do something to monitor the rate of response of doctors to the needs of those who are suffering from carcinoma? At what point will we receive accurate information? We do not want the answer, "Write individually to each health care trust and if you are lucky you can put all the bits together. If you go to the Library, someone else might do it for you." We want accurate information on how long people have to wait before they are referred for their first appointment, what sort of treatment they receive and how long they have to wait for it after their first appointment with a consultant and what sort of general support services are available.
I was impressed when I telephoned the service of the British Association of Cancer United Patients—a service which is run mainly by the nurses of St. Bartholomew's hospital to help people who may have been diagnosed, or think they may have been diagnosed, as suffering from cancers. The response was helpful, civilised and informative. It gave exactly the type of support that one would need if one was very frightened.
The word "cancer" terrifies people, especially women. They are terrified if they think that they might have something that needs treatment. Many of them are still not confident enough to come forward at an early stage because they are terrified. If an unnecessary barrier is put in their way, such as the need to wait for an appointment or the failure of the system to refer them to a specialist early enough, they will give up or, in some cases, decide that they ought to try to obtain some other treatment.
If one were a private patient, one would not have to wait for a suitable appointment in a radiotherapy department or with a consultant oncologist. The response would be rapid. Indeed, one might be offered a series of appointments. What does one do if one cannot, or will not, go to a private doctor? What does one do if one lacks the money or the back-up to go outside the national health service and demand some immediate care pattern? One worries oneself into a state of collapse before there is any sign of suitable treatment, whatever it is and whenever it happens.
I believe that the Government are determined to wreck preventive health altogether by the way in which they have split the national health service, so one should not be astonished by their response on that subject. However, some people demand that we force the Department to give us some answers—instead of allowing it to reply to five or six questions in the House, tabled correctly, with a reply about whether the information is "available". It does not say, "We cannot collect it." It does not say that it is too expensive. It does not even say, "We are terribly sorry; we used to do that; now we do not." It simply says:
This information is not held centrally."—[Official Report, 7 March 1994; Vol. 23, c. 83.]
The lack of information has one immediate effect. It means that no one realises the extent of the emergency, no one puts pressure on the Ministers and no one does anything other than treat the matter individually at every level.
Before I give the Minister the chance to read his usual anodyne series of unrelated statistics, I shall read another letter to the House, which sums up some of the difficulties. It is about a disease which, oddly enough, is not capable of responding to early treatment. It was sent to the Speaker and I have her permission to quote from it because it is of importance to the debate.
The gentleman who wrote the letter asked the Speaker to send his letter on to Members of Parliament, and especially the women Members of Parliament. He says:
Right Honourable and Honourable Ladies,
I approach you in this way respectfully but unashamedly for the manner of the approach.
I wish to bring to your attention a situation that potentially affects all ladies…
At 4.45am just before dawn on Wednesday 22nd September 1993 my gentle, caring wife became a little known statistic.
She was one of ten that day, one of nearly 4000 women in the year, to die from ovarian cancer.
She died after a five month illness.
This cancer is lethal and this year more than twice as many women will die from it than cervical cancer.
Over 75 per cent. of these women will have gone to their doctors when the disease has spread outside the ovary—it is then already too late.
More than 72 per cent. will die within 5 years compared with 38 per cent. and 42 per cent. with cancer of the breast and cervix respectively.
If detected in its early stages, ovarian cancer, limited to the ovary itself, can be treated by surgery and over 90 per cent.
thus treated
will survive 5 years.
For those of you who think 5 years is a short time then think of my wife and I who only had 5 months to say the things we needed to say and say goodbye with as much dignity as we could.
Incidences of this horrendous disease is limited of course to women ….
If the deaths had…been clue to say, influenza, with its 134 deaths in a month of this years outbreak then there would be an outcry against the Health Service and dark tales of epidemics and shortage of vaccines.
It is almost inconceivable that there is not a national outcry against this cancer, sometimes called, even by the normally stoical medical profession, 'The Silent Killer.'
The Silent Killer is not detectable in early stages with present day medical techniques…It is undetectable until it is too late…
I would be made a leper of society if I were to go out into the outside world today and denigrated women as second class citizens. Yet this is what this disease does. Deaths
in
this particular branch of…cancer go unreported, unnoticed and it seems only the immediate families care how the loved one became a victim.
He goes on to say that there is one chance, and one research unit. There is no clear sign that there will be sufficient funding even to start the research work at the Royal London hospital, which could make it possible to save many more women. He finishes:
I am not appealing on behalf of any charity. I did this simply for ladies everywhere and for the memory of my wife. I know I may have been unethical in my approach; respectfully I apologise for that but not for the content of the letter…read this and
I will know that you care.
We need a series of targets; we need action from the Department of Health; we need to take the work that is being done and to say how many departments throughout the United Kingdom do their job properly. We should not leave it to individual Members or individual doctors. We should act on behalf of the people who need our support.
No other group of people would be allowed to suffer as women are being allowed to suffer and it is an added disgrace that a female Secretary of State for Health has done nothing—nothing—to change the situation.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), not only on being lucky in the draw, but on the way in which she decided to present to the House the issue of early treatment of cancer. Each year, 16,000

women die of breast cancer. In this country each and every year, there are more than 110,000 cancer-related deaths because of tobacco consumption. However, I want to debate not tobacco consumption but the three areas of cancer and prevention strategies. My hon. Friend has covered some of it eloquently. There are other areas which she has highlighted.
It is necessary for the Government to give clear and precise answers about their strategic approach in relation to the early diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Only improved diagnostic skills, with improvements in screening, will determine whether the outcome for the sufferer is a period of progress and health or one waiting for a slow, lingering death.
The profile of cancer prevention has never been higher because of the debate in relation to the banning of advertisements of tobacco products. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) has assiduously asked the Minister questions about the cost-effectiveness of screening and early detection.
The Minister would see an immediate return in one area without one extra penny having to be spent. Professor Smee's report on the banning of tobacco advertising shows that by that measure alone, 5,000 lives a year would be saved. The lives of 5,000 of our fellow citizens would be saved without an extra penny being spent on the national health service. Some £95 million of immoral earnings goes to the Treasury through the tax yield from children's purchases of cigarettes; yet only £5 million of that—5 per cent.—is reinvested in prevention programmes. That is an obscene set of priorities for a Health Minister.
I should like the Minister to turn his mind to three areas. I will give only a snapshot of the problems raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich to illustrate the way in which the Government fund, manage, resource and plan the national health service. I shall refer to prostate cancer, bowel cancer and primary liver cancer.
The incidence of prostate cancer has risen by 19 per cent. in five years, from 9,127 a year to 10,837. Death rates are up 17 per cent. in five years, from 7,458 to 8,735. In the past five years, 40,722 men have died from prostate cancer. It is the most common cancer affecting men over 60 in the United Kingdom. It is a silent killer; post mortem investigations prove that 10 to 30 per cent. of men between 50 and 60 and 60 per cent. of those between 70 and 80 have silent prostate cancers—undetected cancers—at the time of death.
Using those figures, at least 20 male Members of Parliament currently have an undetected, silent prostate cancer. Yet with screening methods, 15 to 18 of us would be identified early enough to survive. The survival rates are good if the cancer is detected early. Some 43 per cent. of those whose cancer is detected early are alive five years after diagnosis. In 1990, the British Medical Association's "Family Health Encyclopedia" said of the outcome of this very dangerous cancer:
When the growth is discovered at an early stage, the outlook is very good. However, if the cancer has spread outside the prostate gland and does not respond to hormone treatment, the prognosis is poor.
Despite that, the Government remain stubbornly opposed to the introduction of a screening programme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) recently asked the Under-Secretary of State for health what was his policy for the screening of this cancer. He replied:


The key to any screening programme must be to secure a demonstrable improvement in health by increasing length of life and enhancing quality of life. There is, as yet, no evidence to suggest that this would be achieved in relation to prostate cancer. The Department of Health is pursuing research in screening through its own centrally commissioned programme and through the national health service research and development programme. A copy of the Chief Medical Officer's speech to a recent 'British medical Journal' conference setting out current policy implementation issues for screening in the NHS will be placed in the Library."—[Official Report, 3 February 1994; Vol. 236, c.855.]
In 1992, the disease claimed 9,396 mens' lives; that is four times the number of deaths from cervical cancer. There are rightly screening programmes in place for cervical cancer, yet the Government will still not introduce screening devices for men in relation to a killer disease. As I have said, the figures are alarming. Yet the prostate gland is an accessible piece of the anatomy for clinicians to reach. New scanning techniques, such as ultrasound, can detect prostate cancer. There are a number of proven treatments, such as radiology, chemotherapy, hormone therapy and, if necessary, surgery. With the use of those proven treatments, survival rates are good.
It was left to Doctor Thomas Stuttaford, writing in The Times on 6 March 1992, to put the matter into perspective. He spoke for many colleagues in the medical profession in advocating the institution of a screening programme. He said:
If the tumour is localised, early surgery gives a 65 per cent. chance of surviving for ten years. As well as saving lives, a screening programme would reduce the number of men condemned to suffer lingering ill-health, and pain, for years."
However, among the Department of Health advisers and among the medical establishment, there is a group of people who discriminate ideologically against men in relation to prostate cancer. Many say that the cancer is part of the aging process and that it is not, therefore, cost-effective to screen men. They say that we should simply leave growing percentages of men, as they age, to be susceptible to the disease. Intellectually, that is an unacceptable and unsustainable argument.
If Department of Health officials are saying that they will intervene only at the point at which the individual concerned has a cancer and is unable to maintain his fitness, they are treating only to die and not to live. If that is not the Department's position on men and prostate cancer, the only option is to treat to live. To treat to live, there must be the option of screening, because without screening there is no early detection. Without early detection, it is difficult to sustain life after the operation, but with early detection, as Doctor Stuttaford has shown, there is a 65 per cent. chance of life after 10 years.
The Department and those in the medical establishment who advise the Department must come clean on the issue. Why are they discriminating against such a large proportion of the male population? Why should men simply have to accept that in the aging process, between 55 and 70, a growing proportion of us will have prostate cancer? As there is no screening, we shall have to accept that a growing proportion of us will die even if we have expensive and intensive treatment. That is nonsense in medical terms and in moral terms, but it is what the Government offer middle-aged men.
The argument for screening is overwhelming. Let us consider the evidence in the United States and in Germany,

where all men over the age of 45 are advised to undergo an annual screening test—a prostate-specific antigen or PSA blood test. If the Government are in the business of preventive medicine, it is inconceivable that they can hold out much longer in such discrimination against so many men. If we accept the concept and principle of screening to prevent cervical cancer among women, how can we refuse to accept the concept of prostate cancer screening for men when the death rate from prostate cancer among men is four times as high as the death rate from the deadly disease of cervical cancer among women?
Some 22,000 of our fellow citizens die each year of cancer of the colon and rectum. Survival rates are poor even when it is detected, at 30 per cent. after five years. Yet in the specific area of colorectal cancer, which causes 17,500 deaths a year, early detection increases survival rates dramatically. With detection through early screening and the work done by consultants concerned, 80 per cent. of people survive.
The two cardinal symptoms of the disease are a change in bowel habits and rectal bleeding. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, because of the lack of coherence, the failure to identify the disease through screening, the lack of patient involvement in preventive health care, and the lack of significant effort being made to give general practitioners and practice nurses better training and information, a growing number of men and women are having those cancers identified too late. If treatment took place, their life expectancy would improve dramatically.
We therefore need to take a number of steps. We must improve general health education, with information for patients and patients groups and work done at GP level. We must improve education and training for doctors and nurses, particularly general practitioners and practice nurses. We need a technique to improve screening methods.
Screening does not necessarily mean blood tests, urine tests and samples on every occasion. It means introducing into the NHS a preventive strategy whereby, on a regular basis at community and primary health care level, people susceptible to those diseases are seen regularly by GPs and practice nurses, who discuss with them whether the pattern of their bowel habits has changed or there is rectal bleeding. That general approach would significantly improve the identification of the disease and thus the survival rate once treatment has been implemented.
In a written question on 27 May 1993, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South asked the Secretary of State for Health:
what plans she has to publish guidance to doctors in relation to screening for occult blood.
That important test can determine at an early stage whether someone is likely to be suffering from the consequences of bowel cancer. Yet the Under-Secretary replied:
We have no plans to issue guidance at this time."—[Official Report, 27 May 1993; Vol. 225, c. 668.]
So the Government have no plans to notify or explain to GPs that that screening method is one of the most effective ways to identify the disease at an early stage.
Where is the Government's strategy for prevention? Where is the Minister's concern and interest? He is not even prepared to send a letter to tell GPs that the introduction of an occult blood test would assist greatly in identifying cancer in so many of their patients. He should


not forget that that cancer causes 17,500 deaths a year. The stakes are high. He could at least send a letter to GPs about the matter.
Tests and procedural advice would help greatly in ensuring that GPs did not misread the symptoms of colorectal cancer as haemorrhoids. A constituent of mine is now terminally ill because such advice was not given to his general practitioner, who misread his symptoms. My constituent's symptoms went unchecked for more than 12 months. When that gentleman was admitted in an emergency to a local district hospital, sadly, he had a tumour in his colon bigger than the palm of the surgeon's hand. That is no exaggeration—it is in the discharge notes written by the surgeon, who said that on carrying out surgery to save my constituent's life he was appalled to find an inoperable tumour that was larger than the palm of his hand.
My constituent had consistently been to his general practitioner with symptoms which could have shown that he was suffering from cancer of the colon. If the Secretary of State had given that general practitioner the advice sought in the question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South, the general practitioner and his colleagues in the medical profession would have been more aware that symptoms suggesting haemorrhoids could also be symptoms of cancer of the colon and rectum.
Primary liver cancer is the most common in the world. Its main cause is the hepatitis B virus. Thankfully, a large proportion of this country's population are not infected by that virus and deaths from that common cancer so far are relatively low compared with other forms of cancer that have been outlined. However, this debate is about early detection and prevention. The World Health Organisation wrote to the Government, along with other Governments, advising them that, for a variety of reasons, the spread of hepatitis B in the developed world poses a potential threat to future and current young generations. The World Health Organisation could not have given a clearer message that there has been arid will continue to be a spread of hepatitis B in communities such as the developed industrial society in which we live.
Until now, it has been a disease of the third world and the developed world has ignored it, as we have ignored the spread of tuberculosis, which is the world's largest killer. We have turned a blind eye to it because deaths from it have been mainly in the third world. We have therefore failed to recognise the growth of tuberculosis in the United Kingdom and have at the same time allowed health authorities to ignore screening and vaccination programmes for the first time since the introduction of such programmes in our society. That short-termism will undermine the community's long-term health and well-being.
Despite the increase in tuberculosis, the Government have so far ignored the World Health Organisation's warnings about the spread of hepatitis B in our society. The World Health Organisation has come back to the Government and recommended that we should put into place by 1997 a hepatitis B preventive vaccination programme which should target not only children in socially deprived communities but all children in the UK. Why do the Government refuse to comply?
I am talking about a vaccination to prevent cancer. The hepatitis B virus is the most common factor in the development of primary cancer of the liver; yet the western world faces now the possibility of our young people being

put at risk because the hepatitis B virus is becoming more widespread. In later years, therefore, there is likely to be a significant increase in primary liver cancer. Medical science has given us a vaccination which can prevent the onset of this cancer, but the Government refuse to take the advice offered by the World Health Organisation.
The Government are penny wise and pound foolish. They allow health authorities to spend millions on BMWs, Jaguars and Range Rovers for executives while denying our children access to preventive strategies against hepatitis B. In some areas our children are not being vaccinated against the onset of tuberculosis either. That shows that the Government are not interested in preventive strategies or in a co-ordinated approach to the prevention and treatment of disease.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich I shall end by reading out a letter. It is typical of the letters that I receive in my role as shadow spokesperson on health. I could have brought a hundred similar letters sent to the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Secretary of State for Health or the shadow Minister for Health. All those hundreds of letters offer poignant proof of the Government's failure to introduce the right surveillance programmes to deal with many of the cancers that threaten our society. The Government's failure has led and will continue to lead to thousands of needless deaths.
Not only will middle-aged men die needlessly: they are being discriminated against in terms of access to the health care that they need. What is the Government's position? When are they likely to make an announcement about the right of men to screening for prostate cancer? Do they intend to continue to discriminate against men? With detection, there is an excellent chance of successful treatment and longevity.
The following letter was sent to me by a lady about her husband:
For a period of time my husband complained of backache. There was early diagnosis by his GP of rheumatism. At his most recent check in February 1992 he was informed that things would be okay. To the horror of his family when he could not stand the pain any longer in June 1992 he was diagnosed as having cancer of the prostate. No screening in the intervening period was ever provided, yet I understand that this disease, if screened, can be successfully treated.
I believe this is one of the major causes of death among men, yet there is a simple blood test that can detect whether the prostate gland is working correctly. All the time we are hearing of the need for better preventive medicine.
The result of all that was that my daughter had to leave her home and her work and for six months help me to nurse the unfortunate victim, my husband, who died in agony on 14 July 1993.
It seems unbelievable that much of the expenditure which ensued as a result of his illness could have been prevented had this type of cancer been detected early enough.
The lady is saying, poignantly, that her husband was treated to die, not to live. If only a small proportion of the NHS resources that are used to prolong life after diagnosis had been used to screen this man, he would have been saved. Screening is therefore cost-effective, not just for the Exchequer but for that priceless thing, family life. I am talking about love, togetherness, and the ability of families to live together for life, all of which can be torn to shreds in a matter of months because of the failure of the system to intervene early enough to treat positively gentlemen such as the one mentioned in the letter.
The lady continued:
As there was no alternative offered in relation to nursing my husband at home we had no option but to sacrifice everything to nurse him through his final months. As a result we, his carers, are


still suffering the effects of the trauma we had to go through. For many months we were on duty 24 hours a day nursing, with little or no room for improvement. We were supplied with seven extra hours help per week, and it needs to be remembered that patients are ill 24 hours a day, seven days a week—including weekends and bank holidays.
Vast amounts of NHS money have been used to supply drugs, sometimes up to 10 different types, visits to specialists and regular hospital check-ups. Some of the most distressing experiences we had were too extensive to write to you in this letter, but we feel it will draw your attention to some of the matters which have caused great concern to us.
The irony is that when the NHS was asked to intervene with all the resources at its command—primary and secondary care, consultants, drugs—one vital ingredient was missing, and the treatment came too late.
I urge the Under-Secretary of State to respond tonight to the issues that I and my hon. Friend have raised, and to respond positively. For every positive action that the Minister takes, some family in Britain in the weeks, months and years ahead will be spared the trauma undergone by the woman who wrote to me and by the woman who wrote to my hon. Friend. Every week, thousands of families in this country lose a loved one prematurely because of treatable, curable cancers.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): There is no disagreement between us about the fact that cancer is a terrible scourge which kills many people prematurely in a most distressing way, or about the fact that we must make every effort to deal with it.
Controlling cancer forms an enormous part of the NHS's work. It consumes nearly one tenth of the total NHS budget. Probably one in three people will be treated by the NHS for cancer at some time in their lifetime. Some 200,000 cases are diagnosed in England and Wales each year. There is no disagreement on the seriousness of the issue, although we could argue about the technicalities and the efficacy of certain screening programmes. However, I shall return to that later.
First, in response to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), obviously we have been at pains over the past few years, and particularly over the past two years, to bring down waiting times. Although more people are waiting for treatment on the NHS, the average time they wait has fallen considerably in recent months and years. That is good, although we must make further progress.
It is particularly important, however, that urgent cases—which must include cancer cases—for whom delay in investigation or treatment would pose an unacceptable risk, are treated promptly. That is why we wrote last month to remind all those involved in the NHS of the need to ensure proper clinical priorities—that is, giving priority to those patients who have an urgent need to be seen or treated and ensuring that GPs and everyone else concerned makes that distinction.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does setting clinical priorities also include closing specialist hospitals such as the Royal Marsden, or is that simply a by-product of the policy?

Mr. Sackville: As the hon. Lady knows, it was agreed in February that the Royal Marsden would be an NHS trust.

Whatever happens, I can assure her that there will be a proper network of cancer centres in London, as elsewhere. I have no knowledge of what she says about closing the Royal Marsden. If she has some information that I do not, perhaps she would let me know.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: The Secretary of State told the Select Committee that funding would be guaranteed only for 12 months. Of course, purchasers could withdraw contracts and put them somewhere cheaper, so the market could close the Royal Marsden very quickly.

Mr. Sackville: Any unit within the NHS has to have the appropriate demand for its services. Health authorities have to make decisions about how they use their funds. If we did not adhere to that principle, we would be running an extraordinarily inefficient health service and we would be spending money on buildings instead of patients.
We cannot guarantee funding any particular unit. The health authorities have to make decisions to spend the resources available to them with particular units.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister could save us all a lot of time and he could certainly save me a lot of blood pressure. Does he not understand that if no long-term support is promised to a very specialised unit such as the Royal Marsden, he will be negating everything he has said about the necessity of setting up specialist units elsewhere or making information available to people throughout the United Kingdom? The existing market will destroy those specialised units, because the money will not be there to maintain them for a long time. Why does he not admit that that is one of his objectives? Why does he not stop treating Members of the House of Commons as if we were incapable of understanding that reading out long lists does not constitute a health policy?

Mr. Sackville: I was not aware that I had read out any lists. There is no hidden agenda against specialist centres. There is a place in treating cancer for specialist centres, district general hospitals and the community; it is diverse and will remain so.
Obviously, cancer must be treated promptly and sympathetically. Delays must be reduced to an absolute minimum. We all know that to wait, whether for the result of tests, for diagnosis or for treatment, is agony for anyone. People are understandably scared of cancer; they are terrified and we have to recognise that fact in anything we do. Clearly, long waits, such as those the hon. Lady mentioned, for radiotherapy or chemotherapy are unacceptable, and we have to make sure that they do not happen.

Mrs. Dunwoody: How would the Minister know?

Mr. Sackville: The hon. Lady must let me get on to the questions that she asked. She wanted to know how many hospitals met the standards set by the report of the Joint Council for Clinical Oncology. I said that we did not collect that information. That was a factual statement.
The NHS does not exist to collect information, but primarily but to treat people. We have to take decisions on how many civil servants, officials and administrators to employ—the people that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) talks about; the men in grey suits who simply collect numbers from units. We have to accept that


every extra employee in the NHS who carries out that task is consuming NHS resources which should be used for treating patients.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous when he links the so-called men in grey suits with the use of information as a diagnostic tool to identify what is going on in our health care system. My hon. Friend is trying to find out from Minister why, when cancer levels continue to be high—both the incidence of cancer and the deaths from cancer—the system fails to take account of the issues raised because the Government will not examine the available information.
Why can the Minister not keep the information for which my hon. Friend asks, when he can tell me how many cars executives have? It is matter of priorities. If he can tell me how many cars national health service executives have, he can provide the information we require.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Interventions should be short and on one specific point.

Mr. Sackville: We have to consider carefully how many resources we spend on administrators and people who process returns from hospitals. It is true that we have an overall figure for the leasing expenses of cars used in the NHS. We certainly do not have a figure for how many are driven by managers or anyone else, but we know that in most trusts three quarters of cars are driven by community midwives, nurses, doctors and people visiting patients. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should admit that.
We are all aware that bodies such as the Standing Medical Advisory Committee, which represents the medical royal colleges, has issued guidance on the clinical management of cancer on lung cancer and ovarian cancer in recent years. I must make it plain that we are also conscious that there is carefully considered clinical advice prepared by the experts in the professions which is not always put into practice. The treatment of cancer is probably a good example in many cases.
For that reason, the Department launched last year a major new initiative to see better use made of research-based evidence of clinical effectiveness. Good practice guidance has been issued to all health authorities, last year and this year, about the management of cancer in detection and treatment.
We have helped to make a growing body of information available to the NHS. For example, last year we issued as part of the "Health of the Nation" programme a handbook to help health authorities draw up plans precisely for reducing mortality and morbidity from cancers. We commissioned work, which will be published shortly, on the needs of populations for the management and care of patients with cancer of the lung and lower bowel. A series of effective health care bulletins have been issued; we are currently considering a further one on breast cancer. That, principally, is what we are doing on treatment.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich referred to the Joint Council for Clinical Oncology, which set targets for reducing delays in cancer treatment. That is just one of the pieces of data that we are using.
Early detection is enormously important and was covered at some length by the hon. Member for Makerfield. We must ensure that patients receive early treatment for cancer. To do that, we must detect it at the earliest possible stage. That is why we have established

national screening programmes for breast and cervical cancer. We lead Europe in having established national screening programmes for those cancers.
Between 1987 and 1990, some £70 million was allocated to set up and run the breast screening programme, which is extremely successful, because we know that some 70 per cent. of women invited for screening are accepting the invitations. We are also the first country in the EC to have a comprehensive cervical screening service based on computerised call and recall. We did not hear much about that from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McCartney: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Sackville: I will carry on, because the hon. Gentleman spoke at some length.
GPs' contracts have been designed to encourage all GPs to improve the take-up of cervical screening among eligible women. Nearly 97 per cent. of GPs achieved one of the targets. The screening programme will undoubtedly save lives and make a major contribution to the health of women in this country.
Before one embarks on a national screening programme, one must be absolutely sure that there is unequivocal evidence of the efficacy, that one will not have a system that will unnecessarily spread alarm, which would lead to a great many false diagnoses and to a great many operations and not achieve an overall improvement in health and longer life. It is too simple for the hon. Gentleman to say "Let us have a letter to GPs about faecal blood, and a screening system." It is more complicated than that.
It is not necessarily feasible to say that we can have a screening system for colorectal cancer based merely on occult faecal blood. That might mean that, to be effective, we would have to invite all men of a certain age for a fairly unpleasant investigation such as flexible colonoscopy. We might find fairly great resistance to such a screening programme among people who are healthy and who feel healthy. We must think carefully before we commit ourselves to any new screening programmes, although several are definitely currently under review.
The chief medical officer, who is a cancer specialist, has established an expert advisory group that will look carefully at the whole question of cancer services in this country. Its first task will be to advise health authorities on how to improve their services, from primary care right the way through to palliative care.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Sackville: I will carry on, if I may, because I have a few more things to say.
I am certain that, within the system that we have, there are problems and instances of lack of co-ordination. There are gaps. I think that the hon. Lady talked about people having a series of appointments. That is precisely the sort of problem that we need to address. We need a better co-ordinated approach to cancer services in this country. People can get lost between the primary care system and the hospital system, or lost or delayed between different parts of the hospital system—for example, between radiography and different consultants. That is precisely the sort of advice that we need and which the chief medical officer's advisory group seeks to introduce.
The chief medical officer must also decide with his colleagues the general shape of cancer treatment in this


country. It is divided between specialist cancer centres, district hospitals and the community. Perhaps we shall see more instances of cancer treatment being delivered at the primary care level. But the claim that patients do better in specialist cancer centres is unproven except, perhaps, in very rare conditions such as eye cancers, bone tumours and particularly in children's cancers.
We cannot just say that it is all about specialist cancer centres or that everyone should be treated in cancer departments in district general hospitals. The evidence on the more common cancers is currently being reviewed by the chief medical officer's expert advisory group and will need to be updated regularly.
We are also concerned that patient services may suffer because of outdated radiotherapy and other specialist equipment. That is why we have made £15 million available centrally over the three years as part of a rolling programme to help replace equipment. That includes linear accelerators, scanners and mammography equipment. Some equipment is old and is being replaced. We must have the highest standards of quality of treatment and we intend soon to issue, for example, model guidance on quality assurance in radiotherapy.
Cancer is a common disease and is a large part of the whole NHS effort, which is measured by what is done or by total spending. There are no easy answers that suggest to us that we should immediately move to a whole series of further screening programmes, although, as I have said, several are potential. If we have absolute evidence of the efficacy of calling for a national screening programme a particular group, whether it be of men or women of a particular age group, we will do that.
Cancer is a disease of the elderly. Clearly, with a larger aged population we will see more cancers. We must work harder to ensure that we have better detection and treatment to prevent the alarming figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred from going further.
We take seriously cancer and the need to improve its detection and treatment. I take it seriously. I lost a close relative in the past few weeks from a long undiagnosed cancer and know well precisely what it can do to individuals and families. I assure the House that we intend to ensure that we have the best services possible in this country for the detection and treatment and cancer.

In accordance with Mr. Speaker's Ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19]—the debate was concluded.

Orders of the Day — Air Traffic (Liberalisation)

Mr. Michael Spicer: For several reasons, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue. It is probably eight or nine years ago that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and I debated these matters in Committee; we are doing so again now, and—as I shall try to demonstrate—events have not moved on much in the intervening time.
Let me explain my reasons for raising this issue. First, civil aviation is an industry in which Britain excels: in Europe, it is without peer. Britain has 13 scheduled airlines—excluding three Hong Kong-based airlines, one of which is extremely important—and 19 charter airlines, many operating from the world's busiest and fifth busiest international airports. Each year, 47.6 million people travel through Heathrow, and 20 million travel through Gatwick, bringing those airports revenues of £527 million and £200 million respectively.

Mr. Bill Walker: First, let me apologise for having to dash upstairs at 9 pm. I am not being rude to my hon. Friend; I am on a Standing Committee, so I shall have to leave.
May I draw attention to one of the tragedies of Europe? When my hon. Friend was a Minister, I badgered him about this; and if I had the opportunity, I would badger the present Minister tonight. The United Kingdom excels in aviation, but we are told that we are not good Europeans because we complain about the fact that Europe will not deregulate in the way we want. Surely that is what the Common Market was meant to be about.

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend has made the speech that I wanted to make. Perhaps I should sit down, and save the House a lot of time. I could not agree more—and the same is true of other areas in which we excel.
Not only have we successful national airports in areas such as London; we also have successful international airports in cities such as Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow and Bristol. As my hon. Friend has implied, Britain has enormous scope in the success of European air travel.
My second reason for raising the issue is that it provides a perfect example of rhetoric and aspiration for free trade in Europe that is unmatched in practice. For that purpose, I could just as easily have chosen the energy or financial sectors: Britain excels in those respects as well, and is still frustrated by restrictive European practices.
In aviation, the formal position is now relatively satisfactory. It has taken a long time; indeed, we must go back to the days—now deeply shrouded in the mists of time—when I was Minister for Aviation. The process began seriously in 1984, with the European Commission's rather weak second memorandum. In 1985, I had the honour of signing the first really liberal air service agreements with the Benelux countries, which began to bring down fares and introduce a modicum of competition. At least there was a model—a model that was formalised in 1986, with the first package of liberalisation, introduced by the British presidency.
It was not until June 1992, however, that the third package came into limited effect, a process that was completed on 1 January 1993. It will be fully effective on 1 April 1997, four years after the single market was meant


to be in existence. By that time, airlines will be able to fly freely between and within European Union countries, charging whatever fares they wish—as long as they are economic, and subject to safety and noise restrictions and ground and air space availability.
That is the theory. What about the practice? As is so often the case in the European Union, when it comes to trade matters, as opposed to restrictive regulations—many of which are concerned with standardisation, and therefore actually antithetical to free trade—practice does not match up to the law. Furthermore, in the case of trade liberalisation—certainly with respect to civil aviation—the Commission is consistently slow to enforce the law.
Two matters are currently of particular interest, and especially at stake. The first concerns state aid. Perhaps I may quote from a definitive work on the matter, my own book "A Treaty Too Far". On page 69, I say:
Almost on the same day that the third package Air Services Regulation was signed by the governments of the EEC"—
as it was then called—
the state-owned Banque de Paris injected £128 million of cash into Air France in what it said was a 'normal' financial transaction. Normality in this context is open to several different interpretations. It may be standard practice in France for one state enterprise to give to another large sums of money when one of them is in financial trouble; but it is doubtful whether private undertakings would have considered this particular transaction as 'normal'.
It took place immediately after Air France had turned in a loss of 685 million francs. From the airline's point of view, the gift (disguised as an 8.8 per cent. investment stake by BNP) could therefore not have been more conveniently timed. Not only did it meet the airline's; losses without the latter suffering any real penalty, but it enabled it to pursue its plans to take a 6 billion franc … shareholding in … Sabena, which was in an equally parlous … state.
Since I wrote that, some months ago, the full picture has begun to emerge. Let me give the House some figures. In the case of Air France, since 1991 the EC has approved state aids to the tune of £800 million. There is some doubt and controversy—to which I shall return—about whether such aid, given through the Banque de Paris, or in the form of so-called investment or soft loans, constitutes state aid; but, in any event, £800 million of French taxpayers' money has, in effect, gone into Air France.
In the case of Iberia, the figure is £667 million; as it happens, it is the same for Sabena. For Aer Lingus, it is £167 million—that was subject to a great court case; for TAP Air Portugal, it is £133 million. Those are large sums going into state airlines.
Far from being coy about all this, Air France—perhaps sensing the Commission's basic good will—is, in a literal sense, going for broke. Rather than backing off or being shy, it has now put in for the astronomical figure of £2.47 billion in subsidy—a staggering sum in the circumstances.

Mr. Bill Walker: The sheer volume of those figures is very disturbing. Moreover, British Midland, British Airways and all the other British airlines are having to compete—in a so-called open market—with airlines that are being heavily subsidised. Our airlines are making profits. Does that not tell us something?

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is on tremendous form tonight. He is absolutely right. In a moment I shall deal in specific terms with the question how that affects our airlines.
I want to give the House two other figures. Having had £133 million over the past few years, TAP has now upped the ante to £607 million of subsidy. Olympic, which is a

tiny airline in comparison with ours, is putting in for £1.5 billion of subsidy. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North is on to a strong point when he compares that with what is happening in the United Kingdom.
Part of the problem is that the institutions of the European Union, notably the Commission, wrongly tend to treat support for state industries in a different light from support for private industries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North has implied, all United Kingdom airlines are private and all the major continental European airlines are, to varying degrees, state-owned. Again, the analogy could be applied to many other industries. For example, there would be the same phenomenon in the energy industry.
The airlines on the continent are state-owned and, particularly in France, they are greatly supported and highly restrictive. That means that the major continental airlines have, in large measure, been supported by being able to attract to themselves new capital on terms and conditions that would simply not have been available to them had they been in the private sector. If they had been in the private sector, four of the seven major national carriers would have had to go into liquidation. There is not much doubt about that. By common consent, Air France would have gone into liquidation some time ago, as would Iberia, Aer Lingus and Sabena.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I do not fully understand the position that my hon. Friend is describing. If the funds were given to private companies that were competing in the market to enable them to survive, surely they would be regarded as subsidies. Therefore, should not the public funds that have been paid to those public companies be regarded as illegal subsidies, and should not the businesses involved be fined by the Commission? Why does not the Commission impose fines?

Mr. Spicer: In fairness to the Commission, it has at last, to use an expression, got off its butt and started to become interested in this matter. It is bringing Air France to court. The question is how the British Government will assist the legal process to reach the conclusion mentioned, correctly, by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), which is that we are talking about subsidies. The fact that they are given to state industries is neither here nor there. One hopes that the matter will be sorted out by the courts.
So far, when the matter has been brought before the courts, the airlines have got off lightly. Aer Lingus in particular got off very lightly. The European institutions, especially the Commission, have been slow to move and the courts have allowed the practice to continue by letting the airlines off lightly. As I have said, they are all coming back to their Governments with their snouts in the trough for more subsidies.
Even more pernicious than the straightforward handover of cash is the fact that the state-owned and protected industries are able to borrow new capital on terms and conditions that would not be available in the private sector. Also, in the past the French have tried to disguise subsidies by calling them, not even loans, but investments and getting away with it. In the case of Air France, money from the state-owned Banque Nationale de Paris was called an investment. That has occurred within the state sector.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North, said, that must be contrasted with happens in the United Kingdom. When British Airways found itself financially threatened, it had to shed 20,000 jobs and radically improve its efficiency. For the continental airlines, it was loss-making business as usual and, with support, the continental airlines were able to continue to compete in a predatory manner against companies that have made themselves efficient without any state aid.
The Commission has hardly turned a hair in recent years until—this deals with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North—Air France made its most recent outrageous cash demand of £2.4 billion. The Commission is bringing Air France to court. On the basis of precedent, the effect of that is doubtful.
It is clear that it is essential that our Government give as much encouragement and support to our airline industry in the legal battle against Air France as the French Government will, on the basis of precedent, give to their industry and as the Irish Government gave to Aer Lingus when it was battling to defend its subsidies some years ago. It is especially important that Air France should be made to comply with the disciplines of the marketplace by being made to stop subsidised predatory pricing and to close loss-making routes.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again. The so-called British Airways dirty tricks campaign has created a lot of interest in the United Kingdom. Does my hon. Friend agree that we could have shown over many years how all those airlines have been carrying out similar passenger poaching with the pricing policies and practices and the interlining which have distorted the market tremendously?

Mr. Spicer: Yes, without a doubt. My hon. Friend is extremely knowledgeable on these matters, and if he says that other national carriers are involved in such practices, I am sure that there is much factual evidence to support him. Because they are state-owned, they are protected by their Governments. There is one law for the state sector and another for the private sector. We saw the way in which British Steel was clobbered for what it was doing in the private sector. That contrasts with the way in which state-owned airlines are treated, particularly Air France, but I could name many others which are engaged in cross-subsidies and all sorts of doubtful practices. I hope that, in reply, my hon. Friend the Minister will address his mind to state aids.
The second distortive effect in the practice of the European aviation market, as against the concept of it, has been protectionist countries' exploitation of the conditions attached to free trade in air travel, especially conditions of air space and airport capacity. For example, the French Government have refused British Airways and the French Airline, TAT, in which British Airways has a 49 per cent. stake, certain landing rights at Orly airport.
That stake is quite significant because, although there is already meant to be free flow of investment within the European Union, I am told that British Airways has been advised that it cannot increase its stake to 51 per cent. because the French Government will not allow it to do so until 1997. British Airways sees no point in pursuing the matter in the courts, but again we are already seeing a

practice—in this instance, the free flow of capital—being frustrated. TAT is being prohibited from having certain landing rights at Orly airport, which is clearly a restrictive practice under the conditions that are attached to the free trade market, to undermine the concept of free trade.
A similar point can be made about the Italian Government with respect to Linate airport at Milan. There are other examples where phoney air traffic and capacity restrictions are being imposed specifically to restrict free trade and the operations of what in formal terms is already meant to be a single market.

Mr. Jenkin: And at Athens.

Mr. Spicer: I suspect that my hon. Friend is right about that.
This all shows that much remains to be done before we shall establish a true common market in aviation. Air fares are still two or three times as high as those in the United States.
I shall not trouble the House with the further point that the establishment of a true free trade area in Europe should take precedence over extending the powers of the European Union's central institutions into other matters of policy. That point has been made before, and I am sure that it will be made again.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I should perhaps have guessed that this would not be a particularly wide-ranging debate. It has centred on unfair competition, as alleged by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer). We are grateful to him for initiating the debate and for giving us an opportunity to discuss these issues, but I almost feel that I am intruding on the private grief of the Conservative party, as this is almost the battle of the skies chapter in the on-going war between the anti-Europeans and the Government, as represented by the Minister.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Everything that I have been saying is pro-European and aimed at achieving a proper single common market, which is the key objective. I am trying to say that we need an active free market for our airlines in Europe. That was the thrust of my speech.

Mr. Wilson: I recognise the semantic trap. Anti-Community Members invariably describe themselves as pro-European. I recognise the distinction between Europe and the European Union as it has developed. I was trying to avoid the word "sceptic", because the Tory argument on Europe is giving sceptics a bad name. It is not a particularly accurate description, either. Tonight's debate is a dimension of the dispute that is flourishing on the Conservative Benches, although there are serious issues and major British interests at stake.
I react a little against the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that a drive towards privatisation is synonymous with good policy in Europe. It is not part of the job of the House or of the European Union to pressurise other Governments into taking privatisation decisions simply because our Government have, or to hold up the success, real or imagined, of privatised industries in this country as a model for every other member of the European Union to follow.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has suddenly become anti-Europe. The Commission's advisory panel has just


decided to advise the Commission that it should encourage all the other airlines in Europe to become privatised. If the hon. Gentleman is criticising the Commission for being pro-privatisation, I suppose that he is about as anti-Europe as we are.

Mr. Wilson: I detect a slight difference between the views of the panel and those of the Commission. Of course, the Commission's views can be argued about—they are not set in tablets of stone. In some cases, I might disagree with the Commission's view on privatisation, but my point was that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South seems to regard it as axiomatic that privatisation was "a good thing" and that other Governments were obliged to follow that course.

Mr. Jenkin: It is a good thing.

Mr. Wilson: I shall not be tempted into an analysis of that argument, which seems to be a minority view that is losing support rapidly.
The decision of other Governments to maintain state airlines is entirely a matter for them. The question is whether they are operating within the rules of the Commission and the European Union. If they are not, the mechanisms exist with which to pursue them.
On the issue of French subsidy and any illegal subsidy in contravention of the treaty of Rome, the European Commission is due to recommend a policy on state aid to airlines. It is clearly investigating the issue, just as it investigated the allegations against Britain in other spheres.
I now quote Air France's defence, as reported in the Financial Times. I am not advocating it, but a defence exists about which we have heard nothing tonight. That defence is Air France's claim that
the FFr1.5bn injection involved convertible bonds and other paper issued under normal market conditions. It also stated that the earlier FFr5.84bn it had received involved FFr2bn in a government capital injection approved by the EU as not consisting of a state subsidy, with the remainder raised on the French financial market.
It is that defence, as opposed to the indictment served by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, that will be the substance of the investigation by the European Commission and the courts into the reality—or otherwise—of state aid. They are the forums in which those issues should be discussed. The idea that one should throw out the whole policy on the basis of the untested assertion that everyone else is cheating while Britain, uniquely, is playing by the rules, shows the anti-EC, or anti-EU, attitudes of one section of the Conservative party.
The wider issue is whether Britain would be in a better position to pursue its strategic interests and press its case within these forums by adopting the negative attitude that we have seen this week or by being a full partner in the European Union. What we have heard tonight is a microcosm of the debate about whether we would get more out of the European Union by being a full and enthusiastic player or by always working on the assumption that everyone is out of step but Britain and that it is all some sort of conspiracy to do us down.
We believe that the balance that we must seek is between the market and regulation. In setting out the criteria for the "third package", Commissioner Karel van Miert made it clear that it was not to be.regarded as a simplistic move towards an unregulated free market. On the contrary, he set out a complex range of objectives. For

example, he accepted the need for public service obligations in respect of services to less-developed peripheral regions and stressed that air links should be viewed as part of a network if trade and tourism were to be properly served.
The Commissioner highlighted the interests of the consumer but did not overlook those of people living near airports or of airline employees. He felt that the future regime should have a modicum of competition but recognised the importance of the Community's industry being competitive on a worldwide scale. That is a fair balance of the interests for any European airline policy to pursue. The approach of the third package aims to reconcile some highly complex considerations and, as part of that, clearly implies the aim of securing a reasonable balance between British interests and those of the social partners.
There is an argument that the forces of competition alone will bring down fares. However, it is worth recalling the fact that our own Civil Aviation Authority has pointed
out:
the removal of bilateral restrictions will create the opportunity for more widespread and vigorous competition between the major EC airlines, but there seems little prospect that this will actually occur.
Therefore, the case is made that regulation as well as the market have a role to play. There is a fear that, if competition fails to emerge naturally, there will be a temptation to go further by sponsoring a type of new entrant that is unlikely to operate according to the principle of the social charter. In extreme form, that may result in "flag of convenience" airlines. In our view, Community air transport has no place for that concept.
The opening up of intra-Community routes in 1997 to the carriers of any member country may be the next logical step, but it is important to stress that individual Governments should be able to place rather more weight on certain domestic policy objectives—for example, the nurturing of regional lifelines, the maintenance of long-term obligations to the public and the pursuit of multi-modal transport integration. It should be specifically accepted that such objectives are legitimate and that they do not simply belong in some transitional or residual category.
Consistent with the development of Community policy, the real issue is how to open up the operation of such services to the airlines of member states, without discrimination. That is one example of a number of areas where there is a potentially important role for regulation at Commission level. The right of establishment implies that the ownership of airlines based in any member country and the opportunity for such airlines to fly each and every intra-Community route must be opened up to all EC citizens. However, if that is to be realistically workable, each member state must apply identical licensing criteria to would-be new entrants to the industry within its own frontiers. This proposal would thus affect a state's national designation policy.
In the absence of a Communitywide licensing authority, the best approach is to lay down harmonised rules relating to the technical and economic fitness of airlines. Differing criteria could seriously hamper other member states' airlines in operating on what the latter would consider to be a fair and equal basis.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wilson: No. I am winding up. [Interruption.] There is not exactly a mass turn-out of hon. Members to whom to give way.
We support the broad thrust of Community policy on air transport, with the safeguards, controls and regulation to which I have referred. Reliance solely on market forces to secure lower fares and wider consumer choice will lead to disappointment. We should frankly accept that, although there will be considerable liberalisation, logic points clearly towards a regulated regime.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) for raising this important subject. United Kingdom airlines and airports do indeed play a leading role in international air transport services, both within the European Union and beyond. My hon. Friend was, of course, right in saying that the United Kingdom excels. He said that the rhetoric and the aspiration are unmatched by the practice. I fear that here too he was right. On this issue, there is not a chink of light between us.
The British Government support our industry. Indeed, we believe that the way in which we have done so over the past decade and more is one of the many reasons for our having an industry that is perhaps the most efficient in the world and, indeed, the most popular with customers. Because of our island status, good air links with Europe are essential if we are to foster trade, in terms of both goods and passenger services, with the Community, but this is essential worldwide too. It is essential not just for the airports in the south-east of the country, but for the regional airports, which are flourishing so well under the regime that we have been pursuing all these years.
We have long argued for liberalisation of air services within the Community as essential to the completion of the single market. The benefits are self-evident. More competition leads to more frequent and better services at more competitive prices. That is good for the consumer and for the industry. That is why the United Kingdom was at the forefront of efforts to bring about liberalisation of air services within Europe.

Mr. Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to deal with one of the more fatuous points made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who spoke for the Opposition? He said that air transport liberalisation and privatisation would lead to the collapse of minor services in the further extremes of Europe. Are not the services in the highlands and islands, all privately owned and virtually unsubsidised, an excellent repudiation of that nonsense?

Mr. Key: I am sure that, in his heart of hearts, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) knows that that is true. After all, he is the founding editor of the West Highland Free Press and must know the benefits that liberalised air services and privatisation have brought to the airlines in that part of our wonderful United Kingdom.

Mr. Wilson: Unfortunately, I have already sent my notes to Hansard, but the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) has completely misrepresented what I said. I pointed out—I should have thought that he and the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), from

their "anti-European" standpoint, would agree—that national Governments must maintain the right to incorporate into their policies the defence of their interests.
Although the British Airways highland division operates profitably, there are always question marks over some of the routes. The island of Skye, on which the newspaper that the Minister was kind enough to mention is based, lost its service some years ago and now has no direct service because the market could not sustain one when the subsidy was taken away.
I should not have thought that there was more than a debating point between us. I believe that, if there is a social case for doing so, national Governments should have the right to subsidise services where the market cannot provide them.

Mr. Key: That need not necessarily divide us. Incidentally, what a pleasure it is when the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and the Minister can present a balanced transport policy. The House is familiar with hearing the hon. Member for Cunninghame North speak about railways and me speak about roads, but here we are both speaking about airways.
However, if we are to talk about Skye, perhaps we had better not talk about bridges. I have looked across at the isle of Skye over many years from the island of Raasay, where my family used to go on holiday. Raasay has never aspired to an airline, but I recall the campaigns that the hon. Gentleman led against a Dr. Green.

Mr. Wilson: Did we agree on those?

Mr. Key: I had better not pry into that territory, but I understand the hon. Gentleman's love for that part of the United Kingdom. I count myself lucky to have tramped up and down the isle of Raasay, sailed round it and fished off it—but I see that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are beginning to think that I may be wandering from the point, so I had better return to the subject of liberalisation.
Liberalisation has now been achieved, in the form of the third package of measures that came into effect on 1 January last year. That provides uniform criteria for the licensing of air carriers to be adopted by all member states when granting licences to Community carriers. Restrictions on cross-border investment have been removed—I shall deal with what my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South said about TAT later. Member states are no longer able to favour national flag carriers by issuing licences on a discretionary basis.
Access to routes within the Community has also been opened up by ending the previous arrangements for sharing capacity. The only remaining restrictions on the provision of domestic services will be removed in April 1997. Carriers are now free to set fares according to their commercial judgment. That has been a long time coming, but I believe that there is evidence that it is already operating to the benefit of the consumer.
The benefits of the changes are beginning to show as airlines offer new and innovative fares packages and introduce services that would not have been possible in the past. For example, British Airways has introduced a new service between Hanover and Leipzig as an extension of its London-Hanover service, and British Midland's introduction of its Diamond Euroclass service resulted in reductions in business class fares on a number of European services, including Heathrow to Amsterdam and Heathrow to Paris.
Some commentators have claimed that the single market in air transport is not working because fares have not fallen significantly across the board. Apart from the fact that the single market is not exclusively concerned with fares, and some fares have come down, that misses the fundamental point that we have created the necessary conditions for airlines to compete. It is a matter for them, based on their commercial judgment, how they respond to the new opportunities and freedoms.
Looking to the wider Europe, we have strongly supported the extension of the third package of liberalisation measures to other European countries so that the benefits are more widely available. That has already been achieved in the case of Norway and Sweden where the measures have been in force since August 1993 and, under the European economic area agreement, Iceland, Finland and Austria are also expected to join in the third package arrangements during 1994. So far, so good. The priority now for the United Kingdom is to ensure that the single market is fully implemented throughout the Community and, in future, throughout all the EEA countries.
In the past year there have been calls from some member states and from their nationalised carriers for measures that 'will slow down or go back on the liberalisation measures, on the grounds that they were, in some way, responsible for an alleged crisis in the aviation industry. We have resisted such calls as unfounded and a thinly veiled attempt to return to the old days of protection for state-owned carriers which would seriously undermine the benefits of the single market.
In response to this, the European Commission set up a committee of wise men to assess the situation and to report with recommendations on the future of the industry. I am pleased to say that when the committee reported its findings earlier this year, it supported what we had said all along, that the real problem facing some, though not all, European airlines is that of low productivity, which is a matter for airline management to tackle.
The wise men's report also fully supported our argument that there should be no going back on the single market in air transport and that the internal market must be made to operate properly if the full benefits are to be realised by consumers and industry alike. There was welcome emphasis in the report on the need to reduce Government intervention in the industry and to allow the industry the commercial freedom to adapt to the challenges of a global and competitive industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South mentioned one or two points, in particular, about the funding of state airlines and private airlines. If I may, I will quote what the wise men said about state aid on page 21 of their report:
In a competitive market, access to finance means should be equitable, it should not be based on ownership. This principle applies both ways. A state which owns an airline should neither privilege the carrier against privately owned companies nor disadvantage its carrier by failing to assume the responsibilities of a commercially oriented shareholder. This principle of equal treatment irrespective of ownership requires a very sophisticated policy on the broader issue of financial relations between slates and publicly owned carriers. It requires a clear separation between the normal commercial operations of a shareholder and state aids granted under articles 92 and 93 of the EC treaty.
That is extremely significant in view of what my hon. Friend went on to say.

Mr. Jenkin: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the efforts that the Government made to help the Commission along to that particular point. Have we not, however, witnessed up to now a serious institutional failing in the political partiality of the European Court in that it has made judgments on a political and partial basis which have not led to the single market that we thought we had already legislated for and that should be enforced by the court even-handedly?

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend describes the case very well in his own words. What I said earlier was that I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South when he spoke about rhetoric and aspirations being unmatched by practice. That is exactly the sort of subject that I think he was referring to.

Mr. Jenkin: This is a failing that seems endemic to the institutional structure. What are the policies of the Government towards reforming those institutions to make them more even-handed, less political and more impartial in the way that they enforce the policy that has been agreed between member states?

Mr. Key: I feel a touch of Maastricht coming on, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you will not thank me for introducing that line. I am about to come to the specific point of what we are going to do next, particularly about Air France.

Mr. Wilson: I wanted to help the Minister out when he felt that he was coming to Maastricht. He can recover his ground. Does he agree that an air of unreality was setting in, with his hon. Friends attacking the European Court, the European Commission and every other Government? The conflict is presented as one of public versus private, yet within Britain we have dog fights between the privatised British Airways and other British private operators. We seem capable of producing our own intense conflicts of interest and dirty tricks without attributing everything to a Britain-versus-the-foreigner category or public-versusprivate category.

Mr. Key: I would far rather have a lively and responsive private sector than the fossilised system that we see too often in our European neighbours' airlines.
We firmly believe that state aid to airlines serves to hinder the industry by shoring up inefficient companies and limiting consumer choice. We should talk not only about the structure of the airlines but about the services rendered to the customers of those airlines. That is why we have pressed the commission to take action on the issue and called for a thorough, independent investigation of the recent announcement by the French Government of their plans to inject up to FF20 billion—about £2.3 billion—into Air France.
We had been expecting the announcement of a restructuring plan for Air France for some time, since the debacle that accompanied last October's attempt at restructuring. Even so, I am astonished by the scale of the aid package involved: £2.3 billion is an unprecedented amount of state aid. It could have a seriously detrimental effect on competition throughout the European market. As such, it is entirely contradictory to the principles of the single market.
We called on the Commission to freeze the aid pending a thorough independent investigation of the case. It is vital that there should be parity of treatment througout the


Community. It is simply not acceptable that some airlines have to make investment from their own resources or go to their banks and shareholders while others can simply go to their Government and receive funds at no cost or at repayment levels significantly below those which the private sector would charge. Why should British carriers that have ensured their financial viability through efficient commercial practices and without money from the British Government have to compete with a monolithic flag carrier propped up by money from the French Government?

Mr. Michael Spicer: Was my hon. Friend shocked that, despite all the head-down mumbling into some brief throughout his speech and his refusal to take interventions and debate his position properly, the Opposition spokesman had nothing to say about Air France? He seemed to be on the side of the French. He seemed to encourage the subventions and so on against our airlines. Was that the feeling that my hon. Friend got from the speech that we heard from the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Key: I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman was not more forthcoming and more grateful for the way in which the airlines responded to the new markets developing north of the border, for example, and in other peripheral areas of the United Kingdom, including the Isles of Scilly and the south-west, including Newquay St. Mawgan and Plymouth as well as Exeter.

Mr. Wilson: I do not want to cause any problems in the internal conflict, but the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South berated me for something different that the Minister may have failed to pick up. I said that, if the rules had been broken, judgment should be made accordingly. This is not the place in which to hang, draw and quarter Air France and the French Government, attractive as the prospect might be to two thirds of the Conservative Members present tonight. If there were a two-thirds majority, the French would probably be in trouble tonight. I am not prepared to engage in the vacuous tub-thumping that we heard from the Minister before he got on to the Isles of Scilly. It is completely at odds with what his hon. Friends asked for earlier.

Mr. Key: I am talking not about hanging, drawing and quartering, but about the guillotine.
The United Kingdom is not alone in its view about the antics of Air France and the French Government. The wise men's report argued strongly against the granting of state aids on the basis that they lead to unfair and unacceptable distortions of competition. They concluded:
capital injections and state aids have severely contributed to overcapacity and uneconomic pricing",
which represent a potential distortion of competition between state-owned and privately-owned airlines.
True, they accepted that there might be a need for "one last chance" transitional aids to restore carriers to financial viability, if only for political reasons, but where is the evidence that this is the last time that Air France will turn to the French Government for handouts? It has already received three capital injections since 1991 totalling some £670 million and a further case, involving a £170 million bond issue, is currently under investigation by the Commission. Moreover, the details of the restructuring

plan that we have seen so far make no reference to reducing dependency on the state by attracting private sector investment, let alone by moving towards privatisation.
There is also little evidence that the programme is severe enough to address the fundamental problems facing Air France, it envisages no real reductions in capacity and it is far from clear how the proposed cost reductions will be achieved. That is why we called on the Commission to instigate an independent investigation of the latest aid and to open consultation on it in accordance with the treaty of Rome. That will enable the UK, other member states and the airlines affected to submit comments on the case. We shall use that opportunity to argue forcefully against the aid and to seek to ensure that, if the Commission decides to approve the aid, it is accompanied by stringent conditions.
In particular, those conditions should include the requirement that the aid should not be used in a way that would distort competition with other Community carriers, through expansion of capacity or expansion on to new routes—indeed, if anything, there should be capacity reductions—and there should be a categorical assurance that this will be the last time that the French Government bale out Air France.
Incidentally, the Air France case is not the only state aid case under consideration at the moment, although it is by far the largest and most important to the operation of the single market. The Commission announced last week the instigation of investigations into state aids for Olympic Airways, involving about £950 million, and TAP Air Portugal, involving about £690 million, plus Government guarantees for future borrowing. When commenting on those cases, the UK will similarly argue against the granting of state aid and press for rigorous conditions to be attached to any aid that the Commission approves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South mentioned the case of Orly airport.

Mr. Michael Spicer: We have established that the Opposition have nothing to say in defence of British interests in this sector. I could not hear what the Opposition spokesman said. Are the Opposition trying to set up Europe as some total licensing authority, which will debate as a European authority against, principally, the United States authority? Does my hon. Friend's research into Labour party policy confirm that it is moving in that worrying direction? I sensed that that was the case from the mumbles of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) before he sat down.

Mr. Key: While my hon. Friend spoke, I looked in vain at the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North for nods or shakes of the head, but none did I see. I am sure, however, that he will make the position clear.

Mr. Jenkin: Was it not obvious that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North was reading an old Commission brief and that it is Labour party policy to lie down in front of Europe and let itself be run over? If the electorate recognises that in the forthcoming European elections, there might be some hope of our doing better than people expect.

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is right, and if anyone tries to run me over, they will find me fairly immovable.
The French do not allow air services between London and Orly airport by any carrier, whether French or British owned. We have raised that matter with the Commission


not only on behalf of TAT, but on behalf of other UK airlines that wish to provide services to Orly. We understand that the Commission is on the point of making a decision requiring the French Government to allow services to Orly in a non-discriminatory way. We would welcome that decision.
As for the question of limits on British Airways' investment in TAT, there is nothing in Community law to prevent British Airways increasing its investment in TAT to 100 per cent. I understand that British Airways has an option to increase its investment, but if there is a problem with the French Government I am willing to inquire into it and take it up with the French and with the Commission if I receive evidence of it.
This has been a helpful debate. I hope that it has been especially helpful to British airlines and the British interest in the aviation industry. In conclusion, I reiterate the Government's commitment to the liberalisation of air transport services, both in the Community and more widely throughout Europe. I believe that that offers the best way forward in the interests of passengers as well as the air transport industry.

Orders of the Day — Child Support Agency

Mrs. Alice Mahon: When I speak about maintenance or the Child Support Agency, I start from the position that the welfare of children should be put first. Children are a very precious asset and I support the principle that parents, absent or otherwise, have a financial responsibility for their children. However, I believe that that principle must be put into practice in a way that creates a fair and effective system of child maintenance, and which benefits all the children concerned.
Unlike the Under-Secretary of State, I do not believe that we can rank children in priority order. I found his statement extraordinary when he said that one of the principles of the Child Support Act 1991 was
the principle that a natural child should have first call on a parent's income."—[Official Report, 2 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 945.]
The implication of that statement is that stepchildren are less deserving; their needs matter less. I do not agree with that principle.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), who put it very forcefully:
The stepchildren are regarded as 'unnatural' children. The Under-Secretary of State talked about 'natural' children and refused to take the cost of parenting stepchildren into account. The concept of deserving and undeserving children is disgusting; yet that is what the Conservative party is introducing into family life and it will cause more family breakdowns."—[Official Report, 10 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 516.]
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston was right. The children of second marriages are equally precious. The sentiments expressed by the Minister were disgusting and the 1991 Act and its agency are seriously damaging second marriages and the children of those marriages.
On 17 December, as I am sure that the Minister will remember, he responded to complaints that I made to him about the Child Support Agency in a letter by saying:
We believe the basic structure of the formula is sound, and that the basic principles of the scheme stand up to scrutiny and are supported by the vast majority of people in this country.
By 22 December, the Secretary of State for Social Security wrote to all hon. Members, telling them that he intended to make changes to the Child Support Agency.
I predict that the Secretary of State will appear before the House in the not-too-distant future, bringing forward further changes to the 1991 Act. I think that he will have to accept that the Child Support Agency is not supported by the vast majority of the people in the country, and that it is doing incalculable harm to countless children and families. I have had many cases where the payment has been increased by the Child Support Agency far beyond the amount that the individual can afford to pay, and I do not think that I am unique in saying that all the cases that I have on file at the moment have been from so-called "absent parents" who were accepting responsibility and were already paying. I do not have a single case where the absent parent was not paying—talking to many of my hon. Friends suggests that that is the pattern.
Some people have made a clean break settlement and are still paying a fair amount in maintenance and court orders. The changes to the formula for child maintenance assessment forced on the Secretary of State by the Select Committee report are simply piecemeal changes to a draconian formula. They do not constitute a fundamental


change to the Child Support Agency and the way in which it operates. The changes have not made much difference to how much many of my constituents pay.
One of my constituents was ordered to pay £80 from a take-home pay of just over £200 a week. His payments have been reduced to £73—a grand £7 reduction. Another constituent made a clean break settlement—something which the Government have stubbornly refused to take into account. Clean break settlements are often arranged amicably between partners, to the benefit of both. My constituent paid what I thought to be too low a figure of maintenance. However, the sum was agreed by the court and by the constituent's ex-wife. He has remarried and has two children by his second wife. He is not a highly paid worker, although he is a skilled man who has done up two homes beautifully so that they are now worth a lot more than when he bought them. The Child Support Agency has demanded £75 a week from my constituent even though he is not well paid. That payment means that he could be in serious danger of losing his new house.
My constituent's ex-wife was on invalidity benefit and will lose £48, plus free school meals, housing benefit and, I believe, free swimming lessons for her child who has extra tuition. None of the absent parent's contact costs has been taken into account. My constituent and both his families—his ex-family and his current family—are worse off because of the intervention of the Child Support Agency. The Minister must justify that position. The Minister regularly stands at the Dispatch Box and says that the agency has benefited women. The two women that I have mentioned have not benefited, but have been heavy losers.
Dramatic mistakes occur. Last week, I received a phone call from a constituent who woke up on a Monday morning to find his wife with a letter from the Child Support Agency accusing the man of having an ex-wife and three children. The man has been happily married for 10 years and has one child of his own. Clearly, a mistake had been made. To his credit, the man rang the Child Support Agency and suggested that he was probably the victim of an administrative mistake. He did not want to become too uptight about the issue, but his word was not accepted. He was told that he had to fill in the forms.
He said that he was staggered at the response that he received, which was, "You would say that wouldn't you—they all say that." I intervened and the man and his wife have received an apology. I do not think that such a response is good enough. I do not see why innocent people who have clearly been the victim of a mistake should have to fill in any forms. I want the Minister to consider that.
More seriously, three women in my constituency have told me that they are not co-operating with the Child Support Agency because they do not wish to have any further contact with their former partners who were violent. They are willing to pay the fine which is, I think, £8.50 a week, from their meagre benefit rather than be exposed to further violence. The Child Support Agency has not yet come back to the three women on that issue. It seems to be taking a long time to make a decision on whether or not to fine them. I should give the Minister the opportunity tonight to remove once and for all the punitive

ploy to punish those who need our help and support. It should never have been included in the Act in the first place; it is disgraceful.
The Minister and the Government must accept some responsibility for the break-up of second marriages. We pass all our letters on to the Minister; I am not naming names tonight, because the Minister has had copies of every case. If there are a couple of letters that he has not got yet, they are certainly in the post.
A constituent of mine formed a second relationship with a divorced man. She, her new partner and two children were low-paid, but perfectly happy, until the Child Support Agency, chasing his former wife who was on benefit, gave the man such a high assessment that he could not pay. The ensuing pressure and stress led to the second relationship breaking down. That trend is on the increase. Both women and the children, even more tragically, lost out in this case. Who does the Minister think has been helped in that case? Nobody in that case has come out of it better off; they have all suffered.
I highlight another case of a father who was paying under a court order and who had to travel to see his child. The high maintenance that he now has to pay has put a limit on the visits. In a recent letter to me, he says:
The Child Support Agency have ruined my life. As a result of their actions I am now receiving counselling as I am unable to sleep at night and my work is suffering as a result. This is dangerous to other people who have to work with me because my mind is on other things. I am unable to cope with the simplest of problems and I feel as though I have had enough.
I see no hope for the future. Thank you for asking me if there was anything that you could do to help me. What I would ask is what else can I do?
There is despair in that letter. Sadly, I have other letters that are just as desperate.
There is another case of a man who cannot and does not think that he should pay the large increase in maintenance. He is denying paternity of his 15-year-old son. One can imagine what will happen if the son gets to know about that. At the moment, the man's ex-partner has kept that from the son. One can imagine the hurt that will be caused all round for that family.
I have another case which I passed on to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who chairs the Select Committee on Social Security which produced the report. It is the case of a man who, because his wife left him, took responsibility of his little girl from birth until she was eight years old. He has received no maintenance and he does not want any because he wants to keep the bond between the mother and daughter—the daughter goes to the mother's every weekend.
The mother has now put it into the child's head that, if she goes to live with her, she can get £100 a week from the father. She has said that they could have a good time spending £100 a week. That is a serious and unusual case. This monster—this Child Support Agency—throws up such cases every now and then. I am sure that other hon. Members have similar experiences.
The recent changes were an admission by the Government that the original child maintenance formula was unfair, yet the Government are not prepared to repay any money taken under the original formula. The Minister said:
any absent parent who will benefit from the new phasing arrangements will get their full phasing entitlement but from a forward date.
Although everybody's payments have been reassessed from 7 February, those who had the misfortune to be first


through the system have ended up paying more. The feelings of injustice expressed to me by those who were already paying is beyond description. It seems to them like a double punishment. I do not believe the Government when they tell us that two thirds of the absent parents contacted were paying no regular maintenance. My experience in Halifax is not unique, as other hon. Members relate the same experience.
When Ros Hepplewhite gave evidence to the Social Security Select Committee, she admitted that, when dealing with a caring parent on benefit, the agency would deal first with the absent parents who were paying maintenance under previous agreements. She said:
We are taking payers first.
That is reflected in my constituency cases. I emphasise that none of the absent parents who have contacted me—we have now reached 63—paid nothing before the introduction of the Child Support Agency. They had taken responsibility for their children. There may be an argument that, in some cases, that payment needed to be raised, but they had all taken responsibility.
The reason for taking payers first is obviously so that the Child Support Agency's financial targets are met. It is extremely distasteful that the chief executive of the agency is on performance-related pay. As a result, those who have suffered financially, rather than those who have shirked their responsibility, are being caught up in that nightmare.
I remind the House that £480 million of the £530 million that the Child Support Agency is to raise in its first year will go to the Treasury. I have said all along that it is a tax. It is not about helping children; it is about benefiting the Exchequer. The Minister has said that the formula-based scheme would provide consistent and predictable results. The results have certainly been consistent and predictable, in that they are placing both parents with care and absent parents in the poverty trap.
The Minister said that Ros Hepplewhite's performance-related bonus would be based on arrangements of maintenance for people with the care of children keeping to the agency's agreed budget, the achievement of the specified level of benefit savings and the level of claimed satisfaction. That is a particularly cruel statement to make because of the misery which the agency is causing.
My colleague on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), believes that the Child Support Agency should be fundamentally reformed. I think that we should scrap it and start again.
Absent parents have a duty to support their children. I agree that the old court system did not work, but it could have been made to work for a fraction of the cost of setting up the Child Support Agency—or should I say the Treasury Support Agency? A system could have been devised to pursue defaulters and enforce payments. Had it been done that way, we would not have been pursuing those already paying but tackling some of those who are getting away scot free and still not paying a penny because we are concentrating on the soft targets.
At least the courts would have had discretion. They could have assessed all the valid factors, including children of second marriages, who should not be considered to be less deserving than children of first marriages.
How much has the reassessment of payments cost taxpayers? That question has been raised previously, but I do not know whether it has been answered. Has the Minister apologised for the many mistakes that have been made, particularly to the family that I mentioned? That

case was outrageous. Will the payments be backdated? Treatment has been particularly unfair for those caught in the trap first.
The Child Support Agency is causing great harm to many families. I believe that the weight of public opinion will force the Government into major changes sooner rather than later. The agency is divisive, unfair and damaging to family life. Sooner or later, the Government will have to listen to the opposition to it. It might be a shout at the moment; it is going to develop into a roar that will engulf the Government, just as the poll tax did.

Mr. John Spellar: I did not vote for the Act that set up this agency, for the simple reason that I was not in the House at the time. [Interruption.] I am explaining my own position: others will have to speak for themselves. If the Minister wants to intervene, I shall be delighted to give way to him.
I first became aware of the operation of the agency last September when a couple of policemen came to see me about problems that they were having with their assessments. They also drew my attention to problems that a number of their colleagues in the station were experiencing. As a result, when we reassembled here I tabled an early-day motion which attracted a small amount of press interest. I was astounded by the ensuing overwhelming explosion of letters from people all across the country describing the problems that they were facing with the Child Support Agency.
The phrase that struck me most often in those letters was, "Our world has been turned upside down." That is a heartfelt cry from people who had carefully built up their lives or who often had rebuilt them and then found that everything was to be put at risk by a drastic and dramatic change in their circumstances.
Perhaps it would have been better if Ministers had looked at the world upside down, by which I mean that they should have carefully scrutinised what has happened in Australia. Australia has a Child Support Act that seems to be working fairly successfully. The Australians do not face the problems that we are facing or the enormous degree of upset in this country. Many of us have attended mass meetings around the country where we have heard about that upset. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) has, with some of his colleagues, organised two or three extremely successful meetings in recent months, the last only a couple of weeks ago. At these meetings we have met irate, indignant and desperate families.
None of this is happening in Australia. The fundamental difference is that the Australian scheme is not retrospective.

Mr. Mike Hall: In the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill, one of the main criticisms levelled at a particular clause by Conservative Members was the fact that it was retrospective. Retrospective taxation makes it difficult for people to adjust their financial circumstances. Exactly the same applies to the CSA. The retrospective nature of the Act has meant that it is impossible for families to adjust their finances to accommodate the massive increases forced on them by the agency.

Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend. He reminds us of a number of occasions when Conservative Members have been extremely concerned about retrospection. It has generally been a principle of legislation that it should not be made retrospective. That applies particularly to financial legislation. I am sure that colleagues recall the successful attempt to remove penalties for councillors who had fallen foul of housing legislation. That retrospection caused uproar among Conservative Members.
Unfortunately, the CSA operates retrospection with a vengeance. People have made choices in arriving at their settlements with their partners—sensible settlements based on the law at the time. They were given advice on the best ways of resolving their differences so as to ensure that their children could remain in the family home in the same neighbourhood and attend the same schools. They wanted to make sure that their children's standard of living was maintained. Usually the wife stayed in the family home, debts were covered by the husband and he moved off to set up a new home. That was their legal and sometimes financial advice at the time and they made prudent and sensible decisions.
Now, that is all being torn up; they are told that it is irrelevant and counts for nothing. All those arrangements have become meaningless and they will be assessed merely on their income. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South said, they suffer dramatic and drastic changes in their circumstances.
In other circumstances, such as when the Government introduced the council tax, and in other areas of taxation—even in national taxation as introduced by the Chancellor—transitional arrangements were introduced. Obviously, when people are facing a change in local taxation and the results will be dramatic, especially if that occurs around the time of local government elections in the London boroughs, transitional arrangements are made to soften the blow. There is no such softening for those who are hit by the Child Support Agency. They get hit by the full amount right away from day one. They sometimes face a doubling, trebling or quadrupling of the amount they pay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said that some people were paying too little, although when one looks at all the surrounding circumstances, things are not always as they seem. An increase in taxation of £50, £60 or £70 a week is drastic and dramatic and can have a devastating effect on people's standards of living, way of life and security.
The decision is in the Government's hands. Quite simply, 90 per cent. of the money that is recovered goes directly to the Government. That is partly due to the take-up strategy. It was clear from the Select Committee report that the first groups to be targeted were those where the parent with care was on income support and the absent parent was already paying maintenance. Those groups are the prime targets and 90 per cent. of the money recovered from them goes directly to the Treasury.
When that point was made in previous debates, the Minister's reply has been that moving away from that would mean increasing public borrowing. I caution the Minister against using that argument tonight. If he does, he is admitting that the Child Support Agency is a tax—a tax that falls directly and particularly on certain limited groups in society: divorced and separated people. It is a divorced and separated tax.
If he is suggesting that people should have to change the arrangements they make for their children, it is legitimate

to do that over time. The evidence from Australia is that the percentage of parents with care on income support and other benefits is falling—but steadily, not dramatically and drastically. That is the Government's problem. The financial bind that they are in means that they cannot take the matter slowly and steadily and in an acceptable manner; they have to rush to get the money all in one go. That is the fundamental difficulty at the root of the problem.
I shall address some of the detailed problems that are arising. They may be details, but for many individuals they are enormously important and cause immense difficulty and heartache. One example that has been raised by a number of Conservative Members, particularly those representing towns some distance from London but dependent on the London travel-to-work area, involves travel costs.
Workers in central London receive higher incomes in recognition of the fact that they experience higher travel costs. Unfortunately for them, however, the higher income is included in the assessment, but travel costs are not offset against it. Although that has been the main problem raised, it is not unique in this country. A considerable number of construction workers and long-distance lorry drivers throughout the country experience significant travel costs, and that is recognised in their remuneration. The problem is that their remuneration counts; the other is not offset.
On the issue of retrospection, problems are also being experienced throughout the country, as I can see from my mailbag, by those who build up huge debts between the initial letter and the assessment. Considerable delays occur, even in straightforward cases, and people then build up 10 or 12 weeks quite normally, and longer periods in many cases. That means that they then face debts of £1,000 to £2,000. That is quite dramatic.
We all know the problems of people once they are in debt: they fall into the debt trap and start to borrow from high-cost areas, not pay off their visa and access accounts and are then juggling between their various accounts and starting to pay a lot more money. Those problems have arisen not, I would argue, because people have been evading or avoiding answering the form, but in this instance merely because of the amount of work that the CSA has taken on and the delays in the system.
We must also be concerned at the errors in the system. A new problem that I have found, which has not been mentioned in debates on this matter before, is where an assessment is agreed, the DSS is notified of the amount of the assessment, which is then deducted from benefit and, for one reason or another, the money is not then paid to the parent with care.
Sometimes that can be because perhaps the money is not paid in, but one woman who came to see me was concerned about her daughter's welfare as she had been losing a considerable sum of money. The mother had seen her daughter's ex-husband's paying-in book and he had been paying for the past 13 weeks. Unfortunately, the money was not coming across. It is all very well to say that there will be administrative problems in every system, but the difficulty is that in such an unresponsive system people then find that they are short of money week after week and get into increasingly desperate circumstances.
I am sure that we have all seen people whose assessment was based on the amount of overtime that they were paid, or the amount of holiday pay that they received. They have


a high assessment, but are now on basic time and find again that they are desperately short of money and cannot make ends meet.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most frustrating aspects for hon. Members when raising these cases is that no matter how much detail we provide in our letters to the Minister, we are always sent a standard letter from the chief executive which does not deal with any aspect of the case until the second or third last paragraph, and even that is a standard paragraph?

Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend had obviously been looking over my shoulder, because the next item in my notes was responsiveness. That problem is faced not only by us, but, of course, by our constituents as well. For them it is even worse. I will check with my colleagues on the time that it takes us to receive a reply, but it is usually between four and six weeks. I note my hon. Friend's comments on the nature of many of those replies.
Many of our constituents are given telephone numbers to call, but they get answering machines; the telephones do not get answered personally. It takes them eight to 12 weeks to get a reply. Often those replies do not address the particular problems. The responses that they receive are often in computer-speak. It is almost as though standard paragraphs are built into the machine and those replies come out. They cannot find any way of getting a response from the system to their questions. That is immensely frustrating, particularly because, under the scheme, the money keeps clocking up. It applies from the time when the first assessment was set up.
I referred earlier to the take-on strategy. We should urge the Minister tonight to look at a new take-on strategy of saying that the legislation should be changed so that we take out the retrospective element. That would remove a huge amount of 'work from the system; it would mean that the agency would be able to concentrate on new cases and therefore be able to take into account many of the factors that we have outlined so that people could deal properly and responsibly with the maintenance of their children, but without being forced into desperation and bankruptcy and being put in the position, as some of them are, of having to decide whether it is worth staying in work.
We are already encountering cases of people giving up work. I am told by shop stewards in the midlands that union members are approaching them and saying, "Next time redundancies arise, put me down on the list; I shall be unemployed, but at least I shall be able to draw benefit." If those workers left their jobs early, they would not be able to draw that benefit; if they take redundancy, two families will be on benefit, rather than only one being on a lesser benefit.
The CSA and the Department must get to grips with the problems that people face out there in the real world. I congratulate the Minister on meeting parents from the north-west recently. On that occasion, he experienced the sheer frustration and anger that they are experiencing.
Some may say that people do not like paying more money. I am sure that that is true, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about people who are desperate—whose world is being turned upside down, and whose lives and second families are being threatened by the changes. Some of the stories are heartrending: couples are having to decide whether to embark on a second

marriage, and whether they can afford to have a child. I have had two letters saying that a second wife or fiancee is pregnant, and is having to decide whether to go through with the pregnancy. We can all imagine the traumas that that is inflicting on people.
I do not think that the CSA and the Department have assessed the difficulties being caused throughout the country. It is time to step back and examine the details, particularly the fundamental problem of the legislation—its retrospective nature.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I apologise to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) for having missed her opening speech. Only in the last few minutes was I released from a Standing Committee, and I came straight to the Chamber to try to catch part of her speech. I did, however, listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), and I have great sympathy with almost everything he said.
Perhaps inevitably, one hon. Member after another will refer to the particularly harrowing cases that have been brought to them. Earlier this week, I asked my hon. Friend the Minister how many letters on the subject he had received so far from hon. Members. The answer was 5,089. I must be responsible for some 70 or 80 of those letters, on behalf of my constituents, and I suspect that other hon. Members who are present have been bombarded with letters from people suffering the effects of the legislation.
Like the hon. Member for Warley, West, I must begin with the question of retrospection, which is a killer for too many families. Let me give the House a small example from my postbag. A couple in a second marriage waited to have their first child until the one child of the first marriage had passed the age of 16: that was the age at which the court order applying to the couple had said that maintenance would end.
Thirteen months after the child turned 16, the CSA decided—retrospectively—to insist that maintenance should have continued at the higher level. The couple were therefore faced with 13 months of retrospective maintenance payments. They have no means to pay that, particularly as they have started a second family and face all the bills associated with a young child. I fear that the same circumstances have hit young and less well-off families up and down the country in a horrible way.
Second on what I would regard as the short list of problems caused by the Child Support Agency must be the failure to take into account existing binding, legal, financial commitments such as loans that people take out to improve their lives. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not do so, but it would be easy for him and the agency to say that people should have thought of that. How could they have thought of that when they had no idea that a ton of bricks was about to descend on their heads? It is fine that we take into account the mortgage and the council tax, but if we do not take into account major financial commitments, whether it be a loan for a car or for home improvement or whatever, we deliver to those people something from which they cannot recover and with which they cannot cope.
Third on the list is the problem of the tightness of resources with which couples are left as a result of the assessment that they have received. There is simply not enough money for them to continue to care for their


children on a part-time basis. Many fathers with a second wife are happy to take the children of the first marriage over a weekend—it may be one weekend in three or one in four. That has stopped in at least five cases that have been brought to my attention because there is no longer the money to go and pick up the children, bring them home, feed them and look after them over the weekend. It cannot be right that we are driving children away from their fathers when the fathers are anxious to play at least some part in looking after them.
Fourth on the list is the problem of wrong assessments. That may be caused by bureaucratic error, but it may be caused because the income of the father or the couple has changed. Income may change because of shift work or overtime, where payments change from week to week. A particularly high figure may have been used in the assessment, but that may become rapidly out of date. There may be a loss of income—not a loss of job—and there is then the question of how long it takes for a fresh assessment to be made. In the meantime, the debt continues to mount month after month. That is the sort of problem that is drawn to my attention.

Mr. Harold Elletson: Is not the essence of the problem the rigidity and vindictiveness of the system? There is an insistence on total rigidity and a refusal to understand individual circumstances and to take into account changed circumstances, such as travelling expenses. Circumstances have changed for one of my constituents. His job has moved from Blackpool to Preston and he has increased travelling expenses. He has been clobbered by the Child Support Agency, which has increased his payment from £5 a week to £31 a week. He now has to maintain a car on top of that. The Child Support Agency totally refused to take that into account, because of its insistence on the bureaucratic procedures that it has set. That is what ordinary people find incomprehensible and iniquitous.

Mr. Coombs: I suspect that officials at the Child Support Agency were only carrying out the rules with which they were confronted. I wish to say nothing in the House that in any way suggests criticism of the way in which officials are carrying out their duties on behalf of the agency. I am aware that there have been stories of that nature, but I do not want to dwell on that.
Having heard that intervention, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on it. Clearly, that rule should be changed. If the Government are saying that people should not take a job if it means that their travelling expenses are increased so that they are no longer able to afford their maintenance payments, I hope that they will think again, because clearly that is wrong.
I had high hopes for the Select Committee when I heard last year that it was going to look at this issue. Sadly, the Select Committee spent a short time taking relatively few accounts of the position and produced a report that did not go to the heart of the problem. I hope, however, that it will return to the issue as soon as possible. I asked the Clerk to the Select Committee today what were the chances of its doing so and was told that there was interest in pursuing the subject again but no fixed date had been given for an inquiry. I hope that the inquiry will begin soon. I have the highest regard for the Select Committee procedure, and if

only the Committee would give weight of evidence to what hon. Members have said in this and previous debates, we might begin to make progress.
On Sunday morning, I shall attend a meeting of 150 victims of the Child Support Agency. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something that I can pass on to them, rather than my simply saying sorry. Like the hon. Member for Warley, West, I was a Member of the House when the Child Support Bill was given an unopposed Third Reading. All of us who were Members of the last Parliament must accept some share of the responsibility.

Mr. Andrew Ingram: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that Labour tabled a well-argued reasoned amendment on Second Reading—if he remains for the rest of the debate he may hear its exact terms—in support of which Labour Members expressed their opposition to the Government's proposals?

Mr. Coombs: I am aware of that, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain why the Opposition were prepared to give the Bill a Third Reading without a vote. I hope that he will not try to say that the agency is the responsibility of Conservative Members only. In the past few weeks, I have heard many of his colleagues accept that they did not fully appreciate what would develop, and I see the hon. Member for Halifax nodding. I am trying not to score a point but to say that none of us realised what would happen. I certainly did not, and all I shall be able to say to the meeting on Sunday is that I am sorry but that I shall go on trying to persuade Ministers to make the necessary changes.
When I was in local government, there was a saying—other hon. Members will recognise this—that if one wanted a pedestrian crossing, one could go on hoping and hoping but, until somebody was injured, one would not get it. What will it take to change the rules under which the Child Support Agency works? Will it take defaulting on loans, which I see from my constituency case work is imminent? Will it take giving up jobs and going on the dole? Will it take the break-up of second marriages? Will it take even worse consequences than those before we say that enough is enough and that we cannot go on like this any longer? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will answer that question, as my constituents and, I suspect, those of other hon. Members present wish to know what the future holds.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I believe that the issue that we are debating is not about administration or a formula of Einsteinian complexity but about politics. To clarify that, I wish to say where I start from.
We need simply to ask who has benefited from the introduction of the Child Support Agency and whether, on balance, it has benefited society more than harmed it. If we examine the costs and benefits, one beneficiary is immediately obvious. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said, it would be more appropriate to have called the Child Support Act 1991 the Treasury Support Act, because, of the £530 million targeted for the first year, almost £480 million is due to go to the Treasury. On that basis, the Treasury will do very well indeed, but that is not the only way in which the Government and the


Treasury will benefit. There are hidden "benefits" that are as yet uncosted but have serious consequences for the rest of society.
At some stage, someone will ask what is the cost of the "loss" of 11,000 women from the benefits system as a result of requiring them to name the father of their child or children. The disappearance of those women will also constitute financial savings for the Treasury.
A further uncosted element is the loss of access to 'passported benefits' for some households. I am sure that I am not the only Member of Parliament whose constituents have complained that, as a result of the new formula imposed on them, they are poorer in terms of their net disposable assets. When we do the full accounting, we shall be surprised—some of us will be alarmed—by the full cost to society and the full benefit to the Treasury.
Those are starting points, but it is worth going back to the notion of what propelled the House to believe that the previous arrangements needed to be changed. Three issues were at stake. The first was that, under the previous arrangements, children lost out. The second was that women lost out on maintenance payments under the separation and divorce arrangements, because the court system did not deliver a structured basis of family support from fathers who were in a position to pay for their children but were not doing so. The third was the notion that fathers should take responsibility for their children.
I believe that the House shared those three important concepts but then reached some conclusions about which I can say only that, if I had been a Member at the time, I would not have dreamt of supporting them within the framework of the CSA. We have not stuck to the most important premise, which is that the child comes first.
Under the Act, children do not come first and they are not treated equally. I shall run through some of the ways in which the Act is phenomenally divisive. Stepchildren are not treated as the equals of biological children. Households that were not previously divided are now divided by the Act. Children in the United Kingdom are not treated as the equals of those outside it. Many people with parenting responsibilities have sought, and continue to seek, to maintain children who are not in the United Kingdom, but the financial obligations that they seek to discharge are not recognised under the Act.
I have already raised with the Minister the position of members of the armed forces serving in Germany who have second families with German citizens. For such people, those families are their permanent family, but they are not recognised for the purposes of maintenance. Such personnel have to ask themselves not merely whether they can afford to work but whether they can afford to serve their country and pay what is required under the Child Support Act. It is ludicrous that we have such an absurd disregard for the parenting obligations of fathers who currently maintain children outside the United Kingdom.
The children of second relationships are not treated equally with those of first relationships. I know of cases in which the children of second relationships have been deeply disturbed by the fact that their bank accounts have to be examined when their stepfather's contributions to his first children have to be assessed. It was said that that would not be assessed, but it forms part of the presumption about the available income of the second family. As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, the break-up of second families will be a dreadful

consequence of the way in which the legislation has been working. We may well end up seeing more relationships destroyed than supported.
Children in second relationships are also divided. When there are children conceived in a second relationship and children conceived in former relationships there is a new divide. One has to start thinking in terms of family activities that no longer take place on a unified basis, and about whether a father outside the family is willing to pay for a share of them. It seems to me that that division of children is a most cruel consequence of the way in which the Government have structured this system.
As I have said, children who are no longer the beneficiaries of passported benefits lose out, as do those who are caught in conflict between separated parents. Some children are now the victims of fathers' having to make a choice between supporting them financially and seeing them. There are men who cannot afford the cost of seeing their children. The need to make provision for the development and maintenance of a relationship between a father and his children is not recognised in the formula. Those are the victims of the cruelty of an Act that does not treat children equally and does not start from the premise that we want to develop the best models of parenting, not the worst.
What should we be doing to support the notion of better fathering? Well, we would not have begun with a premise that hits contributing fathers rather than those failing to contribute. But that is precisely where the Child Support Agency did begin. It has made no bones about the fact that it is the contributing father, rather than the one discharging no responsibilities and providing no financial support, who has been pursued. It has made parental contact more difficult and for growing numbers it has turned work into an uneconomic activity.
As has been pointed out by my hon. Friends, a further cost will be the number of fathers who find that it is no longer cost-effective to work. What an absurdity it is that an Act should have that consequence. The system has turned civilised separations into civil wars, and the cost will be borne by society and will eventually fall into the lap of the House in the shape of additional demands on social services and local authority support services.
To have a sensible starting point, we need a different set of principles. I should like to outline two things that must be done. First, we have to address the question of whose responsibility this society's children are. In other debates, Conservative Members have made the point not only that there should be direct parental responsibility for children but that, if the cost cannot be afforded by parents, we should turn to the grandparents for a contribution. That is an individual line of responsibility that fragments the notion of common and community responsibility for our children.
It must be understood that we all have a common interest in the well-being of children. For the next 50 years at least, there will be an increasing proportion of retired people and an increasing dependency ratio. It is in the interests of all of us to have a well-brought-up, well-educated, well-trained set of generations of children, as they will be the wage earners and pension contributors on whom some of us will end up being dependent. We have a common interest in the parenting of children—not just a set of separate and individual interests.
Secondly, we must ask ourselves what the models of "best parenting" are, and how a Bill that goes through the


House can encourage them. I say to Ministers and to my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench that, if we want to put the child first, we should concentrate on payments that go directly to the child. We already have such an arrangement in child benefit. A doubling or more of that would be an extremely efficient way of delivering the money to the child. If the money is not to be delivered through child benefit, the litmus test of whether the method works is simple: does it benefit the child? The test is not whether the money goes to the Treasury but whether it reaches the child.
The second question that we should ask ourselves about separation arrangements concerns family courts. We could learn a lot about those in other parts of the globe. There are family courts in Scotland and in Australia, and they address many of the shortcomings of the previous system in England. The notion behind them was to develop sensible and responsible separation arrangements, with enforceable maintenance payments.
Thirdly, if we want to make adjustments, the best way is through the tax system. Some of the people who do not pay at the moment are those who cannot pay—irregular earners, and people who are in and out of work or whose hours of work are uncertain and unpredictable. Through the tax system, through the imposition of a higher tax coding, we could even out the payments without doing so at the expense of the child and of the parent with care.
I believe that, in the end, the Act will be scrapped, as the poll tax was scrapped, because society and the public at large will not tolerate it. The cost that they know is being borne because of the divisiveness of the Act will force the Government to abandon the CSA. It will be replaced with arrangements that begin and end with the questions, how do we deliver support for the child, and how do we give children in this society the best experience of being parented, in whatever sort of household they happen to be brought up?

Mr. Adam Ingram: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on obtaining the debate. As on every other occasion when we have debated the subject, it has provoked a wide range of criticisms and views of the Act that set up the Child Support Agency. I fully recognise my hon. Friend's strength of feeling on the subject; she made some extremely valid points. My hon. Friends the Members for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) added to her arguments and criticisms.
Only one Conservative Member has spoken tonight, but contributions by Conservatives in previous debates on the subject have given the impression that the Child Support Act and the way in which it has been implemented have reached the same high level of parliamentary opprobrium that was accorded to the hated poll tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South made that analogy, too.
It is now clear that the Government have badly misjudged the commitment of Conservative Members to a measure that cuts social security spending by imposing cash penalties on their constituents. They seem to say, "We agree with the principle of cutting social security spending,

but do not visit the cost upon our constituents." That message is coming over in many of the debates on the subject.
As each day passes, it becomes clearer to Conservative Members that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South said, the Act is not really the Child Support Act but the Treasury Support Act, and it is a deeply flawed and socially damaging measure. We all know from our surgery cases the widespread anger and dismay felt by the many thousands of families whose lives have been affected by the Act. As more and more individuals are brought within its ambit, the number of those who oppose it has grown in direct proportion.
As the Minister knows, the problem is not declining; nor will it go away. It will be with us until the Government act on it. I must remind him that many of the concerns now being raised and all the main criticisms now made of the Act were stated in June 1991 when, as a Bill, it received a Second Reading.
It is salutary to look back at that debate and read what hon. Members said at the time. All the Opposition Members who spoke in the debate expressed serious reservations about the Bill. That was not matched by the contributions from Conservative Members. I have no doubt that Conservative Members who participated in the debate or who went into the Lobbies and voted for the Bill have changed their minds, now that they have seen the Act in operation. Much is made by Ministers and by Conservative Members of the Labour party's position on the Act, and we have had the same view expressed by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) tonight, as if, somehow or other, we have to be sucked into the consensus on the Act.
It would be useful to put on the record the reasoned amendment that was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to the Child Support Bill when it was given its Second Reading. It read:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, while providing that absent parents should contribute to the support of their children, leaves lone parents on Income Support not one penny better off, makes lone parents worse off where they receive maintenance just above Income Support levels and thus lose access to passported benefits, allows maintenance payments to be disrupted if the absent parent defaults, does not take account of property settlements which could lead to an increase in orders for the home to be sold, leaves unclear in which cases the lone parents will be exempt from the requirement to help the agency trace the absent parent and therefore from the penalty of loss of benefit imposed on the caring parent, and does not tackle more serious problems facing lone parents and their children, notably the provision of better child care facilities.—[Official Report, 4 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 194.]
I know that the hon. Member for Swindon did not vote in that Division. He obviously had very good reasons for not being there. But for him to come along now and to accuse Labour Members of somehow being tied into the consensus on this legislation is a piece of genuine nonsense.

Mr. Simon Coombs: It is very good of the hon. Gentleman to give way and I hope that, having had his moment on the reasoned amendment at Second Reading, he will turn his attention to the Third Reading and explain why Labour Members did not oppose the Bill then. It seems to me highly relevant. Before I give him that chance, let me say that I was not seeking to suck in the Labour party in a party political sense; I merely wanted to indicate that there were hon. Members on both sides who genuinely did not anticipate the effect that the legislation is having.

Mr. Ingram: The usual way, if hon. Members have reservations and a reasoned amendment is put forward, is to vote for the amendment. If the hon. Member had been present—I accept that he had reasons for not being there; I do not know what they were—he could have come into the Lobby with us. Opposition Members made the very same points that he has made tonight, and the reasoned amendment set out their criticisms of the Bill. Hon. Members who shared those criticisms had the opportunity to express them in the Lobby, but they did not do so. I am pleased that they are now on our side, but, at every opportunity that we are given to vote to bring about a sensible change to the legislation, Conservative Members are noticeable by their absence from the Lobby for those voting against the Government. That is a very important point, which Conservative Members should note.
The criticisms set out in the reasoned amendment are just as valid now as they were then. It must be a matter of regret to the 221 hon. Members who opposed the amendment and supported the Bill. They must feel, on second thoughts, that they should have done something different, in the same way as, on second thoughts, they approached the hated poll tax. If only the Government had not been so pig-headed and inflexible, and if only they had taken greater cognisance of the points made in the amendment and during the debate, perhaps they would not be in the mess that they are in with the Act.
We now have the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security acting like King Canute, standing in the way of change as wave upon wave of mounting criticism threatens to overwhelm him. Not even the most insensitive of Ministers—I do not put the Under-Secretary in the bracket of insensitive Conservatives; indeed, I put him in the higher bracket of sensitive Ministers—could be impervious to the pressures that the Under-Secretary is under.
We know that a case has been made time and again for the Government to undertake a fundamental review of the Act. We know that that demand has the support of many Conservative Members. We can hazard a guess that even the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Social Security, with his little hit list for attacking those in poverty, are perhaps secret supporters of the demand that changes should be made. If they take that view in secret, they perhaps do so only because they want to get themselves off the hook on which they are now impaled.
The only message that we hear from the Minister time and again is that the Government have no current plans for further changes to the scheme. That message was stated as recently as 28 February by the Under-Secretary of State at column 643 of the Official Report. I could almost hear the groans of despair and howls of outrage of the tens of thousands of families and individuals affected by the Act when that message went out on 28 February. The one message that those who are affected by the Act do not want to hear from the Government is that there are no further plans for change. That is the message which the Minister is getting from his own Benches.
I do not know how much credence can be given to press reports about people who have committed suicide as a result of the actions of the Child Support Agency. We can probably discount most, if not all, of those press reports. But I know that genuine hardship and misery have been visited on tens of thousands of hard-working citizens who have been caught in the trap of the Act.
The Minister will argue that the Government have shown a willingness to listen and adapt. He will give the

example of the changes in the regulations introduced in the House on 2 February. We all accept that those changes were welcome. At least they were an improvement on what was there before. They were an overall improvement and had to be welcomed. They certainly gave a measure of relief to certain categories of parents who had been asked to pay substantially increased maintenance.
However, it was pointed out when the changes were introduced in the House that, as a side consequence, they had a deleterious effect on certain parents with care in receipt of family credit. Those who were paying maintenance benefited. Those who were supposed to receive the benefit were affected in a damaging way as a consequence. The Minister has claimed time and again that one of the purposes of the Act was to help parents who were left to bring up children on their own. Yet the Government have introduced changes to the regulations which achieve the very opposite.
The effect of the changes on family credit recipients was pointed out to the Minister during the debate on 2 February, when the regulations were passed. On that occasion, I asked him to recognise the problem. It is interesting to note that if people have been paid too much family credit, the level of payment can be reduced by a reduced benefit direction from the appropriate Department of State. Yet if people have been paid too little family credit because of changes introduced by the Government, they have to wait six months before they can be given their full entitlement. Surely that cannot be right. The Minister has ignored the points made to him on 2 February and continues to penalise mothers in certain circumstances in receipt of family credit.
In recent parliamentary answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), the Minister tried to play down the full effect of the regulations on those who receive family credit. The Minister tells us that he estimates that fewer than 1,000 families are affected and that the average loss per family will be less than £100 in total. Of course, that is an average figure and it means that some families will lose substantially more than £100.
I said earlier that the Minister was a sensitive Minister. Surely, he must be aware that someone with limited resources who loses £100—£2 per week—from a very tight budget faces difficulties when trying to make ends meet. That has been the effect of the regulations—if only for 1,000 families—for those on family credit. The Government must have known that that would happen. They did not balance the figures and they did not take action to protect such parents with care.
I should like to have raised a number of other issues in the debate. I am grateful that so many of my hon. Friends contributed to it. I want to give the Minister sufficient time to answer the questions raised so that we can have a proper debate on the subject. More important, tonight the Minister must take all the criticisms that have been repeatedly made inside and outside the Chamber, from many bodies, including the organisations that have been established to campaign specifically against the Act. He must take on board the arguments and undertake a fundamental review of the legislation. If he does not do so, like King Canute he may well drown.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): If I remember rightly, King Canute walked away from the beach at the end of the day, but we shall not worry too much about that.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on initiating the debate. I thank all hon. Members who have participated. I know the interest and close involvement shown in the subject by the hon. Members for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) and for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall). I noted what my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) and for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) had to say.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) introduced some philosophy into the debate by ranging slightly wider and considering the role of children generally, which I welcomed. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who was on the Front Bench earlier, has expressed his interest to me by way of letters. The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) made a brief intervention.
I also welcome the comments of the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), with whom I have debated the subject before. I am grateful for his kind personal remarks, but he skipped daintily away from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon about Third Reading. I take what the hon. Member for East Kilbride said about Second Reading, but he managed to avoid the point about Third Reading. He also avoided the fact that, when we debated regulations on the Child Support Agency last year, the Opposition did not vote against them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon was not trying to make a party political point—I heard the bluster of the hon. Member for East Kilbride as he tried to introduce that aspect—but was expressing an honest view. I also noticed that the hon. Member for Halifax nodded her head when he said that some of the consequences of legislation are not always anticipated on either side of the House. I shall comment on that later.
Amid all the complaints and criticisms levelled at the scheme, it is important not to lose sight of just how bad things were before, and why the legislation was necessary. Almost 1 million lone parents had become reliant on income support by 1992–93, with three quarters of them receiving no regular maintenance, which was wrong.
Let us consider those figures. The vast majority of parents with care and their children were living at the basic level of income provided by income support. Meanwhile, many absent parents had been able to enjoy a higher standard of living—they were not on benefit. The new scheme was designed to go some way towards redressing the balance. The method chosen for achieving that—there was a measure of understanding of it in the House—was to move to a formula-based system that would produce a more equitable distribution of income in a reliable and consistent manner.
It is true that a formulaic system is less flexible than one based on discretion, but there were far more inequities under the old system and far more people were disadvantaged. It has been easy to forget about that during the past nine months.
The vast majority of parents had been reliant on income support. All absent parents, even the hardest cases, are protected from falling to that level of income under the new rules. Many absent parents are unhappy with the new

demands. I recognise and understand that. Yes, it is difficult to adjust when maintenance bills are brought up to more realistic levels. That does not necessarily make it wrong or unfair.
One of the problems of the old system was that its inequities had become accepted—even condoned. People who were disadvantaged by the system did not complain—or, if they did, no one listened. It is sometimes easy to forget that there were hard cases before. People walked out of divorce courts and ancillary proceedings, having been, and feeling, hard done by. When there are so many interests, it is not possible to create a situation in which everyone feels content and that all has been done.
I make those comments to put all the criticisms of the Child Support Act 1991 into context. I am still convinced that the scheme that we have put in place is an improvement on the one that we left behind. I believe that, in spite of some of the comments made by hon. Members tonight, the House would not favour a return to that system.
I cannot allow the basic principles that we have all stood for and the gains that we have already made to be undermined. Our response must be measured and, above all, it must ensure that the interests of all parties are recognised and taken into account.

Mrs. Mahon: I deliberately outlined a number of cases. In every case the children are not better off and, in almost all the cases, nor are the women. So how can it be a better system?

Mr. Burt: For two reasons. First, in many cases in the past, when maintenance had not even been thought of and was not being paid to the vast majority of women on income support, their situation would never improve. [Interruption.] Will the hon. Lady hold on? Most lone parents, as we know, do not want to remain on benefit for ever. They want to get back into work. It is of considerable advantage to them to have maintenance available in the medium and longer term. A recent report by the Policy Studies Institute said that that was very clear, and that to achieve maintenance early was probably the most important factor on its own for improving the position of single parents and encouraging them back into work.
Even if maintenance does not mean a pound-for-pound increase, the fact that it will be available and will be there is an advantage. If people receive family credit, there is a maintenance disregard, and if they do a job where benefit is not involved they will notice an advantage. In those circumstances, they will be better off. The very fact of establishing maintenance is terribly important and in many cases in the past it was not there. That is a distinct advantage.

Mr. Spellar: rose—

Mr. Burt: I will move on, because I have only until five minutes past eleven and I shall not cover the topics raised otherwise.
Hon. Members are aware that we recently introduced a number of measures to ease the burdens of the absent parents who were most affected by the Child Support Act. Those measures were based on some of the Select Committee's recommendations. I feel that the Select Committee's report has been rather easily dismissed by colleagues on both sides of the Chamber.

Mr. Ingram: indicated dissent.

Mr. Burt: It was. It was said that it did not go far enough and was not what people wanted. In fact, it was a considered report by a group of colleagues. We all have some time for most of them. The fact that the report did not necessarily come out with the answers that everyone wanted does not mean that it should be dismissed. It made some approaches to the questions and suggested some ideas for change that we accepted.
We have made changes to include a substantial increase in the minimum amount of income that an absent parent would keep after meeting maintenance liability; a reduction in the additional element where there is a liability for only one or two children; a reduction in the amount included for the care needs of the children as they grow older; and an extension of the arrangements for phasing in the new amounts. Those are not minor tinkerings. They represent a substantial reduction in the amount that many absent parents will have to pay.
Let us consider some of the effects of those changes. About 55,000 cases were reassessed as a result of the 7 February changes. Of those, 41,000 had a decrease of liability and about 14,000 had no change in liability. The fact that those changes have been made has meant something to people in receipt of those reductions. Moreover, they have been designed to be of most benefit to absent parents at the lower end of the income scale and those with second families.
Those changes are proof of our commitment to keep the policy under review, and to make adjustments as the need arises. The fact that we acted so swiftly and decisively shows that our commitment to keep the scheme under review is not just empty rhetoric or a formula of words: we mean what we say. We remain true to our pledge, and to our determination to build a fair and just system for child maintenance that will be a cornerstone of United Kingdom family policy well into the next century. We must now allow the changes to feed through into the system. Once that has happened and we have fully evaluated the impact, we shall be able to judge whether further changes are necessary. That is the responsible way to deal with the matter.
The hon. Member for Halifax raised points about good cause and co-operation. She will remember that the House spent considerable time on that in the run-up to the introduction of the agency. It was assumed by many colleagues to be the major issue that we would face. That turned out not to be the case—partly, I hope, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I, and the chief executive of the agency, put time and effort into ensuring that it would not be the case.
Good cause has been investigated in 49,000 cases. That sounds a lot, but it is only 6 per cent. of the applications issued. Good cause has been accepted in 50 per cent. of those cases—24,760. In 11,570 cases, the parent with care has named the father because we have been able to reassure those parents that it is the right thing to do and that we would protect them if they feared any difficulty. That system is working well and it is right to keep it in place.
If the hon. Lady persists in her view that we should not have that degree of incentive, I must tell her that I do not believe that the way in which the Act has worked has given her cause to feel that. It may be a philosophical objection on her part. I hope that she agrees that we have tried very genuinely to meet that worry and to provide that degree of care.
A number of colleagues raised again the issue of the soft

target—the idea that it is wrong to try to increase maintenance payments from those who are already paying, because that makes the CSA the Treasury Support Agency. There is a real divergence of opinion here between what Labour Members say and what the Select Committee says. I am not sure whether it would have formed part of Labour's approach to the issue if it had been in office. Again, I direct colleagues to paragraph 18 and the following paragraphs of the Select Committee report, which deal not only with the soft targets argument, but with retrospection. The hon. Lady many not agree, but many people do. The arguments are fair and genuine, partly because hon. Members of her own party signed up to them and must, therefore, have believed them.
The Select Committee says straightforwardly:
A large part of the public debate about the Child Support Agency has centred on the accusation that it was picking unfairly on 'soft targets', that is, those absent parents who were already making maintenance payments. Behind this accusation has been an allegation that the Agency's work is governed by the requirement to make substantial sayings in the social security budget. We believe this objective to be an important one. The Committee believes that taxpayers have for too long been asked, in effect, to pick up maintenance bills that should have been met by absent parents.
The House either agrees or disagrees. If Labour Front-Bench Members disagfee with that—if they do not believe that that is a legitimate aim and object of Government—I am happy for them to say so. I believe that it is a legitimate aim and that the way in which the Select Committee dealt with that point was important.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I hope that my hon. Friend will address himself to my point. The element of retrospection is driving many of my constituents deeper and deeper into debt and is destroying their happiness, their marriages and, perhaps, their lives. What message should I take to them when I meet them on Sunday morning?

Mr. Burt: The first message is that the fact that previous settlements would be looked at was an implicit part of the Act, which my hon. Friend supported. Secondly, the changes we made on 7 February included some that were designed to ease that pressure because we had felt it necessary. The reason why previous settlements were looked at was to try to ensure that everyone would have the same base for maintenance in the future and to leave behind some settlements which, in the past, had left women with low levels of maintenance which they could not increase. The previous system gave some legitimacy to settlements in which taxpayers had borne the brunt of the burden because they were picking up housing costs and the like. That was the point specifically referred to by the Select Committee. To allow that position to have remained would have been unfair on everybody else. That is why those matters were considered.
A variety of issues have been raised tonight, many of which, alas, we shall not have time to deal with. The question of the Australian system was raised again. It is fundamentally different from ours. It is very broad brush. It has no equivalent of protected income. It does not take housing costs and similar matters into account. The number of appeals is beginning to increase. So far, it has had 11,537 applications for review out of a total caseload of some 150,000. Of the finalised cases, 2,647 were successful, while 2,127 were unsuccessful. Some 46 per cent. of absent parents' appeals were allowed, while 54 per cent. were refused; 87 per cent. of parents with care were


successful, with average increases of $36 a week. Obviously, an appeals system would have to work both ways.
There is a lot of material here and I could happily speak for three quarters of an hour. I take seriously all the comments that hon. Members have raised, as they probably know, but I am in no position to say other than what I have previously said about the future: that we intend to keep the matter under review. I pray in aid of that statement the fact that, when changes were suggested to the Government before and we thought them right, we made those changes. I am true to the pledge to keep the system under review, as we want to make it right. We all have a vested interest in doing so. In the meantime, we shall look carefully at what hon. Members say—

In accordance with Mr. Speaker's Ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19]—the debate was concluded.

Orders of the Day — Northern Line

Mr. John Marshall: >: Having raised the subject of the Northern line more often than any other hon. Member, I do not apologise to the House for raising it yet again. Earlier this evening, someone told me that the answer to the Northern line's problems would be to steal some of the trains from the Central line and put them on the Northern line. I asked how that would be done and he said, "Well, you'd stop running trains to Epping." I said that that would not necessarily win the support of my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, as his constituency would be adversely affected.
First, I thank the media for the publicity that they have given to this campaign, particularly the Evening Standard for its constant support of all campaigns to improve the quality of life of Londoners, especially those who travel on the Northern line. Although I thank the media for their support, their tactics in trying to doorstep the Chief Secretary may be slightly counter-productive. He should not be treated in the same way as Lady Buck or someone else who is frequently doorstepped.
Everyone knows that the Northern line is characterised by a series of disasters. Many of the trains on the Northern line go back to 1959 and, therefore, are 35 years old. It is a sobering thought that the trains on the Northern line are older than certain Members of the House. That brings the problem home vividly. The track is literally crumbling; the signalling belongs to the dark ages rather than state-of-the-art technology; and the dot matrix system is certainly not infallible. The Northern line originates in the Victorian era and the quality of service today is inadequate for the last decade of the 20th century.
The result of all that is that the service is inadequate and irregular and the trains are often graffiti-ridden and rather dirty. Although there has been some improvement in service recently, it is as much due to the recession as to anything else. The dangers inherent in the current state of the Northern line have been underlined by two recent events. Only the other day, one of the 1959 variety of trains was derailed at Edgware station. Previously, there had been no service for some days between Edgware and Colindale because the embankment had collapsed and the trains could not get by. A bus service had to replace the train service. How many more disasters must we have before the Treasury recognises that seeking to run trains that date from 1959 is not terribly sensible in 1994? Port dating back to 1959 may be all right, but 1959 trains are not suitable.
The Northern line serves the City and the west end. The City was a victim of the recession but will clearly benefit from the continued upturn in the economy. A number of surveys have suggested that tens of thousands of jobs will be created in the City in the next few years. As the number of those jobs increases, so the pressure on the Northern line will become more severe. That serves to underline the need to improve the service.
The Northern line is also an important service for tourists seeking to go to the west end and the south bank complex. In a few months' time tourists will be disgorged at Waterloo international station, having come through the channel tunnel and then up through Kent. They may need to take the Northern line for the last bit of their journeys. What sort of impression will they be left with if they make their first tube journey in a 1959 train on the Northern line?
The issue facing the Government and London Transport is simple: the Northern line needs to be modernised, and quickly. Asea Broron Boveri has come up with a scheme that meets the needs of London Transport, and I believe that it is financially ingenious. Any business man would accept it. London Transport should not be allowed to founder on an unimaginative interpretation of Treasury rules. There is a rumour—perhaps the Minister will be able to comment on it—that the Treasury is saying that although the costs of the scheme will be spread over 20 years, and although the amount each year will not be large, the total cost must be charged against LT's external financing limit in the first year of the scheme.
That is quite barmy; it is not how a business would operate. No private company going in for a long-term scheme would ask how the total cost compared with one year's depreciation charge. It would ask how the cost in any one year compared with the cash flow of the business in that year. At a time when we are trying to encourage private sector financial initiatives, I hope that the Government will look at the scheme in these more sensible terms, especially as it will be cash-positive within a short time. I hope that a Treasury ideology that seems designed to stop private sector involvement will not be pursued.
In 1993, the Government agreed that ABB could build and lease 41 Networker express trains for the north Kent routes. The justification was that British Rail would be privatised, whereupon the obligation would be transferred from the public to the private sector. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is not so lacking in initiative or ambition that he tells us that the Northern line and London Transport will not be privatised in the next 20 years. That would be a fairly unambitious and unimaginative approach for any Minister in the Government to adopt.
Surely the Minister will be able to say that the same rules as applied to Network SouthEast will apply to London Transport. I cannot understand a system that decrees that trains can be provided for the commuters of Kent but not for the commuters of London. There is no logic in that at all, and I hope that the Minister will confirm as much.
The Treasury is full of men who are much cleverer than hon. Members—certainly cleverer than an hon. Member who wants to speak here at 11.15 in the evening. Those ingenious men, instead of saying non, nein or nyet, should set out to find a way of breaking the impasse and encouraging this proposal.
The Government have rightly encouraged private financial initiatives. Sir Alastair Morton, after his success with Eurotunnel, has been encouraged to persuade the private sector to invest in public sector projects. The Opposition have decided to support some private sector financing of public sector projects.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can tell the House this evening whether Sir Alastair Morton approves of the ABB proposals. I suspect that he does, but my hon. Friend may be better able to inform the House about the position. ABB is willing to take part of the risk, but it is quite unrealistic for the Treasury to suggest that ABB should be asked to take a revenue risk.
One factor in any revenue risk is the level of fares. We would not expect. ABB to have any influence over the fares charged on the Northern line. After all, a little word called politics can sometimes intervene in the fares charged on London Transport. We all remember what happened in 1981. The fares dropped dramatically when there was a

change of control—until the law courts told the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) that his policy was illegal, and the fares went up again.
A private sector business providing trains could not be expected to run the risk created by future fare levels, over which it would have no influence or control and which might be determined by politics rather than business.
I accept that ABB has produced an ingenious scheme, but it is equally fair to say that when a large sum of public money is involved, it would be quite wrong for one company automatically to get the contract. If the Government were even to promise ABB the project because it had been ingenious enough to think of it, and because it has the spare capacity and therefore would give them a better deal, they would be open to challenge from GEC, as a British company, and from other suppliers within the European Community. The challenge would go on for months.
By far the quickest solution, as well as providing the best value for money for the taxpayer, would be to have an auction between ABB and GEC and whoever else seeks to bid for the contract. I believe that ABB would win that contractual auction, as it has delivered trains to the Central line and will run into a capacity problem later this year. GEC is in a different position. It still has to deliver the trains for the Jubilee line and does not have the under-utilisation that ABB will have in a few months' time. A competitive deal would almost certainly end up with ABB getting the contract and it would be perceived as providing value for money for the taxpayer within the rules of the European Community.
There is an alternative—the "refurb" option. What does that do? It gets rid of the guards and costs £60 million. It would not improve the quality of trains; they would be increasingly unreliable and accident-prone, and breakdowns would become more frequent. Getting rid of the guards would simply ensure that there is one fewer person to whom customers can complain. That is not what the travellers on the Northern line want.
If we do not accept the ABB option, and take the "refurb" option, there will be no new trains for the Northern line until 2009, when the present trains will be 50 years old. That is far too long to wait. There will be no signalling until 2010, which again is far too long to wait.
The ABB proposal offers London the chance of new trains on the Northern line by Christmas. I promise my hon. Friend that, if we can have those new trains, I shall not call for another Christmas Adjournment debate. I can guarantee that he will then have an early night. My hon. Friend has been pestered; he had to come here in July at 3 o'clock in the morning and he has to stay up late tonight. But if he can be Father Christmas to London and give us an early train, he can have the night off.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman referred to Christmas Adjournment debates. Does he recall a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill shortly before Christmas, when, at about 6.15 in the morning, just before a debate on London Transport was due to begin, he acted to stop it taking place? Is he not somewhat hypocritical now to call for debates on this subject?

Mr. Marshall: As the hon. Gentleman will know, I instigated an Adjournment debate in July that took place relatively late at night. I have instigated a number of


Adjournment debates on London Transport and have raised the subject frequently at Question Time. If the hon. Gentleman compares the number of times that I have raised the matter with that of other hon. Members, the comment that I made at the beginning—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman goes back to the events of last December, he will remember that the Labour party, or a number of Labour Members—

Mr. Raynsford: What about the debate on London Transport?

Mr. Marshall: Let me finish.
The hon. Gentleman will remember that many unnecessary Divisions were called, which cut into private Members' time. He will remember also that, on the previous Friday, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) spied Strangers to stop my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) from having his private Member's debate. Quite frankly, the delaying tactics prevented an important debate from taking place later that night on the prosecution of City fraud.
Since last December, the House has come back to its senses to some extent. It is much better to carry on in that frame of mind. What we discovered last December was that if one side spied Strangers, the other side would do so equally as effectively. If we have taught the House that lesson, we did some good last December.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has not.

Mr. Marshall: Well, it is certainly true to say that the House has come back to its senses since last December in quite an effective way.
Our choice is simple. If we support the ABB scheme, the Northern line could have 75 per cent. of the new trains by the end of 1997—within three years. The Northern line could have new signalling by 2000, and what a great bonus that would be to celebrate the millennium. The quality of service would improve. Journeys would be quicker. Trains would be more frequent, cleaner and better ventilated. There would be less disruption and an increase in peak capacity of 30 per cent.
The Government have an opportunity to show that a private finance initiative can improve services in the public sector. They have an opportunity to show that they care about the infrastructure of London and that they listen to the concern of Londoners, who, I suspect, are more worried about public transport than about any other local issue. The ABB project is supported by London Transport, London First, the Financial Times and the Evening Standard.
I have spoken this evening on behalf of the 400,000 people who use the Northern line every day. I have spoken on behalf of the residents of Barnet, Islington, Haringey, Morden, Westminster, Camden, Lambeth, Southwark and Wandsworth who use the Northern line every day. That underlines its importance for Londoners. I believe that what is proposed could be of great benefit not only to the residents of those boroughs but to the City of London as a whole, the people of London as a whole and the millions of people who use the Northern line throughout the year. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) is not here, because I was going to end by saying that that project managed to unite her and me. That is quite a rare event, but it may even have united

me and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). If it has done that, it has achieved almost a miracle.

Mr. Keith Hill: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on securing this important debate. I agreed with almost everything that he said. I was relaxed about his promise that London Underground would be privatised over the next 20 years, because, palpably, we shall not have a Conservative Government during that time.
Notwithstanding that somewhat partisan shaft, let me declare at once that I speak as secretary to the all-party Northern line group, and also on behalf of thousands of my Balham and Clapham constituents who use the Northern line and endure its misery daily.
I do not propose to detain the House for long, as the arguments are obvious. If all the usual economists' tools are used, the proposal to renew rolling stock on the Northern line shows a positive result. It shows a 3:1 benefit-to-cost ratio; it maximises passenger benefits; and it will start earning profits in the year 2000. The attraction of brand new rolling stock is equally obvious.
I understand that there is a cheaper alternative—to which the hon. Member for Hendon, South has already referred—involving the refurbishment of the 1959 rolling stock, which is apparently being touted by some elements in the Treasury. The argument for that scheme, compared with the benefits of an entirely new build, do not stand up to scrutiny. The refurbishment will prolong the life of trains for a mere 10 years and will mean that the introduction of new trains will be deferred until the year 2009. It will even mean a delay of 10 years in the introduction of new signalling, to the year 2010.
Moreover, the refurbishment will still mean a longer journey time for the passenger, more waiting time, more overcrowding and a less regular and reliable service. By contrast, the new rolling stock will mean faster journeys, reduced waiting times, less crowding and a vastly more reliable service. It will give the commuter better security, better passenger information, better ventilation and a smoother and less noisy ride. There really is no choice—and there ought to be no hesitation either. ABB has come up with a welcome and highly innovative lease-back scheme.
I recognise the requirement for competitive tendering via the Official Journal of the European Communities, but the Government should get on with it now. It is preposterous that inappropriate Treasury rules should be invoked to stymie the scheme. Nowadays, there is consensus across all the parties on the virtues of such private-public initiatives. How will the Chancellor's own new and commendable commitment to projects of this kind ever get off the ground if such antiquated Treasury thinking is allowed to prevail? Are the rules made for men and women, or are men and women made for the rules?
An ABB-style scheme will cost London Underground some £35 million a year. London Underground's annual capital programme is running at £450 million-plus—it ought to be more—and its revenue amounts to £1 billion a year. An extra £35 million a year is clearly manageable, against the background of that capital spend and revenue base, the Government's own total spending programme and the variations that inevitably occur each year in that


spending total; indeed, it is hardly measurable. It would be ludicrous to allow short-term considerations about the control of public expenditure to undermine a project of such inestimable long-term value to the people and economy of London. With proper dispatch, the new trains could be on stream by December this year.
The message to the Government is simple, urgent and clear. We want the tender in the Official Journal now; we want the leasing deal now; and we want the new trains now.

Mr. Richard Tracey: >: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and, like the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), I wish to congratulate him on bringing this subject before the House. Unlike other hon Members in the Chamber, I do not have a constituency on the Northern line. I shall speak rather more generally. I am honoured to be the chairman of the London Conservative group of Members of Parliament.
The Northern line is a disgraceful sore thumb in the overall underground railway structure of the capital city. There is no doubt that the underground service is critical to the commercial and tourist life of London. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South pointed out, in the near future, tourists from Europe will come to Waterloo via the channel tunnel route. They will come off the trains and possibly continue their journeys to some other part of London by the Northern line. What an extraordinary and undesirable contrast that will be.
To be fair to London Underground, a great part of its service is now to be commended. Management has taken a greater grip on affairs since the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report of the early 1990s. I am told that in the past year 98 per cent. of scheduled trains were running in the peak period, and 92 per cent. of lifts were in service, as were 89 per cent. of escalators. I am not sure that 89 per cent. of escalators is quite the figure that I would wish to see, but things are improving greatly.
In its report last year, the Health and Safety Executive talked of a "transformed" safety culture on the underground. That is something which we all welcome, particularly those who travel on the underground regularly. In 1992–93, the generous funding of the 1991 autumn statement allowed 60 underground stations to be refurbished, with 'work taking place on 40 more. The first new Central line train entered service in April 1993, and the reconstructed Angel station opened in September 1992.
That is a fairly optimistic picture, and one which my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will be building on in his reply to the debate. However, alongside all that progress, which we welcome, there is the disgrace of the Northern line, which has been described graphically by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South and has been described for several weeks in the Evening Standard as the misery line. I commend the newspaper for that.
Many of us are taking a message to our colleagues in the Government—my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London and, through him, to our colleagues in the Treasury. We are approaching the time when we will see tourists coming in through the channel tunnel link and we must get to grips with the problems on the Northern line. How do we do it? There is no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is doing his best for the benefit

of this country and the taxpayers to reduce the horrendous £50 billion deficit that confronts us. That is an essential task.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South said, the ABB company from the north midlands has put a business proposition to the Government. It has proposed a lease arrangement, with full service back-up, for Northern line trains that would ensure a good service for users of the line and, indeed, for my constituents who travel by British Rail to Waterloo and take the Northern line to other parts of London, and about whom I, as a London constituency Member, am concerned.
My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is worried about the public sector borrowing deficit constantly creeping up. I do not dispute that whatever solution is found must be consistent with the sound management of the economy, but I call on him to put the brains of the Treasury to work to find a solution to the problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South mentioned the involvement of the private sector in the funding of British Rail trains. Why cannot the same solution be adopted for the underground? As we approach 11.40 pm, time is running out. The Treasury and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary must get to grips with the problem for the benefit not only of Londoners but of the commercial life of our capital city and of this country as a whole.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am here to complete the set. There are about 30 stations on the Northern line, which diverts into two branches at its northern end, loops around the middle of London and as one line almost goes off the edge of the planet—

Mr. Tracey: Morden.

Mr. Hughes: Yes—almost off the planet!
The line is represented by a number of hon. Members, three of whom have spoken and many of whom represent the Conservative or Labour parties. By definition, not many London Liberal Democrat Members represent the Northern line: I encapsulate the lot of them, which is a modest honour.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for initiating the debate. He has raised the profile of the issue, backed by others who have signed on. He has had the support of the Evening Standard, which has adopted the line as its campaigning issue. It is all to the good if the only daily London newspaper can take on a key public sector infrastructure project and be willing to rehearse the argument.
I wish to make three brief points. Some work has been done in recent years not on stock or vehicles but on the structure as a result of pressure within tight confines. I represent three stations—London Bridge, Borough and Elephant and Castle. Elephant and Castle was dire and Borough, which was dire, has been refurbished. London Bridge is in the process of wholesale revamping as a result of the work done after the King's Cross fire to make it safe and because it will intersect with the Jubilee line.
Access and the entrance to London Bridge have been improved significantly, and they needed to be. It was bad enough having a grim set of rolling stock that might have appeared, full of people, or that might not have appeared at


all, but it was even grimmer if one was on a terrible platform that was reached by a lift that often did not work or by stairs that were very deep.
In addition, the entrance to London Bridge looked like a building site—it still does to a certain extent. There is a great wall which is just awaiting a wonderful mural, an idea which I hope to persuade London Transport to accept. At the moment, however, the wall is raw, unfinished concrete. For a long time, one had the impression of passing through a building site and into a half-finished building. That is not inviting and it certainly is not good public relations; nor does it encourage people to use the station or to feel comfortable and safe on it.
Progress has been made, but, irrespective of rolling stock, it would be good if there were an early programme to finish the small amount of remaining work, which would not be costly, but would make the difference between stations being nearly finished—nearly adequate—and adequate.
Secondly, I make the fairly obvious point that has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). The Jubilee line extension will be very welcome—I, for one, will be able to step out of this building and arrive home in four stops. It will clearly be a well-used line, and the Minister for Transport in London knows that we have battled long and hard, especially about getting two stations in Southwark that we were not necessarily going to get. The Jubilee line extension and crossrail will be very useful, but, while we are thinking about or proceeding with new lines, we should not forget that the Northern line is a strategic through line, and therefore needs a continuing commitment of public investment.
It is no good if, having inherited the Northern line as part of London Underground, we do not sustain regular investment to upgrade the line continuously. We need to upgrade the system of information to inform passengers when trains are due, how far away they are and so on to make it a line that people want to use. We do not have a straightforward underground system like that of some capital cities, but the Northern line is of central importance; it carries huge numbers of people. We have already debated how much the Government, and London Regional Transport, invest in the underground compared with what the Greater London council invested. Whatever is or has been invested, we need to catch up, because it has not been enough to keep pace with demand or need.
My third point was reflected in the substantive part of the speech of the hon. Member for Hendon, South and in those of the hon. Members for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) and for Streatham (Mr. Hill). What deal can be done this year, can it be achieved and is it desirable? The Minister has been kind enough to listen to representations, so he knows that there is very little dogma or prejudice about this issue in any of the parties. No one is saying that there is a categorical reason why there cannot be some sort of leasing agreement. As we understand it, the reality is that the problem is fitting common sense into the process of government; it is about making sure that what the Department of Transport and we who represent the users of the Northern line think could be a perfectly viable system can be processed quickly without running into any buffers, or Treasury rules.
The Minister has heard this before, but it bears repeating: it is generally accepted that common sense dictates two things. We, of course, have to go through the process of ascertaining who might be the best tenderer for the deal. I accept that, but, if we bear in mind timetables and the date by which things need to be done, we must ensure that by the end of the year—comments were made about Christmas presents—the necessary commitment is made and, if necessary, Treasury rules can be modified to allow for flexibility of financial arrangements. The deadline must be the end of the year because it would allow the matter to be taken on board in the Government's public expenditure statement in the unified Budget in the autumn.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), on behalf of the Labour party, and others have long argued that we are prisoners of old accounting procedures in public and private sector financial partnerships. Such procedures are a barrier, not an advantage.
I hope that the Minister understands that he will have no opposition from any part of the House. He will have the support of professionals in the transport industry and of politicians on all sides for any necessary effort to get the Treasury to be much more flexible than, traditionally, it has been. We understand why public sector controls have been put in place, but, rather than constituting an advantage, they may be standing in the way of a partnership and preventing money from being brought into the system.
I hope that the Minister will be able to leave the debate having told us of his commitment—a commitment that I do not doubt—and with his hand strengthened so that, with our assistance, he can go to the Treasury and get a deal that moves quickly. I hope that, having grasped the nettle this year, we shall be able to come up with a solution. We believe that it is possible. It is a matter of political will. There would be no huge additional financial cost. We are not asking for billions of pounds; we are asking that we be provided with a system which works, and that the Treasury be accommodating.

Mr. Frank Dobson: >: I congratulate the Evening Standard on its campaign in favour of Asea Brown Boveri's proposal, which was made in the 14 days since I first gave it the information. It has done an excellent job for Londoners. ABB's proposal is eminently sound and full of common sense. Consequently, it does not appeal to the Treasury. ABB recognises that if the Government will not find the money to upgrade any part of the Northern line—whether the permanent way, the signalling, the escalators or the lifts that do not work—they will not find money for new trains either.
ABB—at least, this part of it—is a maker of trains. It is already making trains for the Central line, and it wants to keep its process going to produce similar trains for the Northern line. That makes eminently good industrial sense to ABB and to the skilled people working in Derby, who, when they complete the order for the Central line trains, will lose their jobs unless more work can be found for them. From an industrial point of view, therefore, it would be perfectly sensible to give them the job of providing new trains for the Northern line. If they do not get that job, it is likely that they will be out of work. Indeed, the production line may close altogether.
If, for some bizarre reason, the Government decide to postpone the purchase of new trains for the Northern line, the works at Derby may go out of business, and when it is eventually decided to order new trains, they may very well have to be procured abroad. That would be economic lunacy, but it would be par for the course for the people currently at the Treasury.
The proposition that ABB has put forward is that, instead of London Underground having to find the money to buy trains, it should lease them from ABB, which would maintain them at its own expense for the next 20 years. There is nothing novel about lease arrangements. I expect that even some Treasury mandarins and Ministers use this means of ensuring that they have up-to-date, working television sets. The proposition that has been put forward is as simple as that. If it is accepted, new trains should be running on the Northern line by about this time next year. All the rotten, stinking, rattling, clapped-out trains currently on the line could be replaced within about a couple of years. That would be good for London passengers, it would be good for ABB, and it would be good for Britain.
We might therefore ask why the Treasury cannot see the sense of the proposal. The answer, apparently, lies in the Treasury rules. I must remind hon. Members that the Treasury rules were laid down, not when Gladstone was First Lord of the Treasury, but when Mrs. Thatcher, as she then was, was First Lord of the Treasury. There is nothing old about the present rules. They are stupid but they are modern. If they could be changed in the early 1980s, we should be able to change them in the early 1990s—indeed, we are approaching the mid-1990s. The rules are stupid and archaic, and they inhibit the development of our country. They need to be changed.
It is worth reminding the House that even before they had the present set of rules the people at the Treasury were a backward-looking lot when it came to anything practical to do with British industry. Churchill once said that they were like inverted Micawbers, waiting for something to turn down. Nothing gives those people greater pleasure than turning down some practical proposition suggested by practical people to bring some practical help and benefit to others.
We understand that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has announced that the plan would not be a good bargain for the taxpayer. Presumably he came to that conclusion. as he travelled about in his chauffeur-driven car, paid for by the self-same taxpayer. I should have thought that a perfect example of a bad bargain for the taxpayer was having to fund the transport arrangements of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Certainly the right hon. Gentleman might have a different point of view if he had to travel to work on the clapped-out ruins that presently shuffle along the tunnels of the Northern line. He, like everyone else with a bit of common sense, might see that it should be a bargain to go ahead with the proposition.
The Minister for Transport in London is an eminently talented chap. Before Christmas, in the space of one short winter's day, he told the journalists from the Evening Standard that the Government would privatise the underground, but before the afternoon was out he told the House of Commons that they would not. In view of the explanation recently given by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the veracity of some of the statements

made by Ministers at the Dispatch Box, we can probably assume that what the Minister told the Evening Standard was the truth. However, that does not change the position.
The Minister is trying to do the same sort of double shuffle now. As I understand it, there is a sort of general responsibility; people who sit on what is called the Treasury Bench do what the Treasury tells them. In this case, that is to turn down ABB's proposal to get new trains on the Northern line. But apparently all that is being blamed on the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and the Minister is letting it be known that he strongly supports the proposition. He had better sort himself out. He must either go to the Back Benches and support common sense, or stay on the Treasury Bench and stick with the Treasury rules. That is the choice that he must make.
One or two more general points need to be made. The state of the London underground is deplorable. The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) described the Northern line as though it were a swine among pearls. He implied that the rest of the system was pretty good, and that the Northern line alone was a mess. That is not how large numbers of travellers on the other lines regard their journey to and from work every day. Many of them are discontented. They use stations with lifts or escalators that do not work, suffer from signalling failures and so on.
Just before Christmas we saw the virtual collapse of the whole tube system for a day or two because a 71-year-old cable on the Central line had burnt out. That is unacceptable. The present state of the underground system means that it teeters on the brink of collapse almost every day, and it fell over that brink not long before Christmas.
A vast amount needs to be done to the underground, and one of the problems is that the Government's top priority for investment was not to get the existing system back into good nick so that it could provide a decent service; their topmost priority was to finance the extension of the Jubilee line, largely to bale out the banks which had taken such a caning over Canary wharf, and also because those self-same banks were finding £300 million towards the cost of the extension.
I may add that when these geniuses, presumably presided over again by Treasury Ministers, negotiated the arrangement with the banks, they made no allowance for inflation, so that the famous £300 million is to be paid out by the banks in instalments over a period of 20 years and, on some of the projections that I have seen, it could cost them all of £19 million at the end of the process if inflation reaches certain levels. The reason why the Government decided to invest in that line was that it would help their friends who are now the newly enhanced speculators at Canary wharf and the small contribution that they were prepared to make.
If the Minister had asked Londoners where the money should be invested, they would have told him to invest it in the Northern line and in the other lines which are already not working and which offer a lot of scope for investment. Even if the Government see sense, accept ABB's proposal and get these new trains on to the Northern line, it will not resolve all the Northern line's problems by any means. The track is in a terrible state. The signalling is in a terrible state. In my own constituency the French escalators at Kentish Town station have never worked properly for the past six years, and Mornington Crescent station is now closed indefinitely because they cannot afford to replace the lifts. Similar circumstances apply all the way down the line.
This was one way forward, one way in which at least a good part of the investment for improving the Northern line could have been found. The Government could then have been left to find the rest of the money to improve the permanent way, the signalling, the electrics, the lifts, the escalators and the stations. That is what could be done if this is approved.
It ought to be approved. It will be a disgrace if it is not approved. I do not think that in their present humour Londoners will forgive the Government if it is not approved. It makes sense for the travelling public. It ought to make sense for the Treasury. It certainly makes good sense for ABB, which is not some obscure outfit from Derby, after all, but one of Europe's most significant manufacturing companies, with a good track record all over Europe. They are not the sort of people to enter into fly-by-night arrangements with anybody.
The Government ought to accept their proposition, and accept it now, for two reasons. First, the people who travel on the Northern line are entitled to a better deal. Secondly, we cannot allow the rundown of the manufacturing capacity at Derby to proceed much further, or a large number of the skilled work force will disappear to other places and we will never get them back.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): We have had a rather good debate. I join the many hon. Members who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on securing it. I want to put it on the record that he is a tremendously assiduous campaigner for the Northern line. His assertion that he has probably asked more questions and instigated more debates on it than any other hon. Member is likely to be proved correct, and I congratulate him on his assiduity.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the Evening Standard campaign on the Northern line has been an effective one. I share with him the observation that it illustrates more than anything else the good humour of our right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary who, I think, has dealt with the concentration of the Evening Standard on his personal role with his usual aplomb and with considerable panache.
I am also pleased to see the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) here. I appreciated his speech. He has developed considerable expertise on transport issues. I have admired the work that he has done with the Select Committee. He knows the Northern line extremely well and he has devoted a great deal of attention to it. He is noted for knowing what he is talking about, like the other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I am delighted to say. I am grateful to him for what he had to say.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), who is the chairman of the London group of Conservative Members of Parliament, made a powerful speech which, I am sure, will be noted in a number of quarters. He articulated sentiments which I know are widely shared across the Benches. I am sure that he was right to ensure that those sentiments were put on the record.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is an habitué of these late-night occasions. I did a brief calculation while he was speaking. As far as I can recall, there are 50 stations on the Northern line if one takes accounts of the bifurcations. As my hon. Friend the

Member for Hendon, South said, 400,000 journeys are made every day on the line. That shows what a massive enterprise the Northern line is. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was right to say that there has been a refreshing lack of dogma about the debate about rolling stock, about which I hope to say some more in a moment.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: >: Before my hon. Friend goes, he ought also to pay a tribute to our hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), who was sitting here silently, and to our right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir George Young). Those who are not able to speak ought also to get their tributes from the Minister.

Mr. Norris: It is characteristic of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) that he should be kind enough to draw attention to those of our colleagues who are required to be silent. I entirely endorse his sentiments.
I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) attend upon our proceedings. He is a Northern line Member. I am extraordinarily grateful to him for his advice on my career path. I shall probably be able to resist most of it. He reiterated some of the usual canards. He referred to the Central line failure. I hope that I am not stealing too much of London Transport's thunder, but Sir Wilfrid Newton has now completed the inquiry into that incident with his usual thoroughness and objectivity. He has made it clear and will shortly publish in terms that neither the age of the equipment nor any question of underfunding was related to that regrettable failure.
The length of the failure was caused more than anything by the singularity of the fault. It was the type of fault that occurs literally on one in a thousand occasions. It was extraordinarily difficult to trace. Once it was traced, it was relatively simple to fix. That is worth putting on the record. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman might seek to have some fun with the idea that it was all down to underfunding and the age of the equipment. I know that the fact that that is not true is inconvenient from his point of view, but it happens to be the case.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that the bit of cable that conked out was 71 years old?

Mr. Norris: No, I will not confirm that the piece of cable that conked out, as the hon. Member so elegantly puts it, was 71 years old. I will simply tell him that the whole report will be available for him to see. He will see that Sir Wilfrid has specifically made it clear in his conclusions that neither the age of the equipment nor any question of funding was related to the failure that he investigated. I hope that that is as clear as it possibly can be. The important thing is that the report will speak for itself.
It is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and his party chided me for months for not abandoning the idea of a private sector contribution to the Jubilee line extension and wanted me to pass the whole cost of the scheme on to the taxpayer. They said to me for months, "Get on with it. There is great regeneration potential south of the river and you must get on with it if you believe in regenerating London." Now the hon. Gentleman says that we did an extraordinarily tough deal with the creditors at Canary wharf.
Incidentally, it is amusing that the hon. Gentleman has just woken up to the fact that the cash sum is to be discounted. If we are talking about Treasury theory and the brain that exists in the Treasury and if the hon. Gentleman hopes to be a member of a Government, I hope that he will be quicker on the mathematical uptake than he appears to be. Now that £400 million in cash has been taken from the group of banks that are creditors of Canary wharf, he has the temerity to suggest that those bankers deeply wanted and approved of the deal. The expression on some of their faces did not show the approbation that he ascribed to them.
It was an extremely good deal for Londoners and an excellent deal for the taxpayer. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sticking out for the contribution that he insisted must come from those financial institutions, the taxpayer was saved £400 million in cash over more than 20 years.
We are here tonight to talk about the Northern line, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South will forgive me for diverting slightly to deal with the wide-ranging speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. I want to give the context of the proposal. The line has been a favourite butt of jokes—many of which were doubtless deserved.
I completely accept that the line is in need of modernisation. As has been said, most of its trains and signalling need to be replaced. However, such a decision is ultimately for London Underground, which has to balance the books and live within the resources available. The line is next on the list for modernisation once the £750 million Central line project, which is currently under way, is completed next year.
I want to pick up an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton. It is true that the line has shown great improvements in performance over the past few years, largely through the positive steps taken by the line's management. Indeed, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report of 1991 on London Underground, with which hon. Members are reasonably familiar, singled out the Northern line for special praise. It stated:
the Northern Line management team has … achieved a remarkable improvement in performance, by management action to identify the causes of train cancellations and to tackle them directly. Staff absence has, in particular, been dramatically reduced.
That was the clearest evidence that, if improvements in service are to be attained, investment has a place, but management also has its place. I am sure that the House would wish to place on the record its appreciation for the excellent work that successive managers of the Northern line have done to help transform its performance.
The improvement has continued. In the current financial year, the average figure for scheduled Northern line trains in passenger service stands at about 98.6 per cent., making it one of the best performers on the system. The line is currently performing ahead of its target, in terms of both headways between trains and delays. If a "misery line" tag was once attached to the Northern line, it is not attached to it now.
Having said all that, I am not suggesting that nothing needs to be done. I am as keen as anyone for an early start to be made on the wholesale modernisation of the line, but it is important to remember that there are other measures

that London Underground has already taken, or is already planning to take, which are delivering improvements both to trains and stations on the line.
The single most important scheme is the £72 million virtual reconstruction of Angel station. That was one of the biggest projects of its sort ever undertaken by London Underground and involved the replacement of the infamous single-island platform, which used to serve both northbound and southbound trains. That platform was replaced by the more conventional arrangement of two separate platforms for northbound and southbound traffic. It meant replacing those four aging lifts, which were the major means of access, with new banks of escalators. It meant constructing a brand new ticket hall. That station is now safer and less congested and provides a cleaner and more comfortable travelling environment. The escalators, after initial teething troubles, have worked extremely well.
It cost £72 million to renovate one station. That is a vivid indication of the scale of costs that are involved when one takes on the tasks of reforming a major piece of infrastructure such as the Northern line.
Other schemes are under way and there are programmes for the near future. They include the much-needed substantial remedial works to the 10 stations on the southern end of the line, to which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred. He was right about that. I think that the hon. Member for Streatham knows the need all too well. I pass those stations every day on my way from Camberwell. I do not believe that they look satisfactory; I do not think that they operate satisfactorily. I am glad that London Underground's programme includes urgent remedial works to those stations.
Let us now turn to the ABB proposal. The House knows that London Underground and ABB are pressing hard for a Government announcement on the project. I know that it has the support of many of my hon. Friends. Although the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras appears to be seeking to divide me and my colleagues in the Treasury, I believe that I would not be doing my job as Minister for Transport in London properly were I not an enthusiastic advocate of the idea that we should subject the deal to all the scrutiny necessary to see whether it can be available to the people who use the Northern line. That is straightforward.
I have also said that that does not mean that we abandon financial prudence and throw all the rules of good housekeeping and husbandry out of the window—as I fear the Labour party would do, were it to be confronted with a decision. For the Labour party, "new sources of finance" means abandoning all the rules on expenditure controls. That is a seductive path to go down—there always are jolly good reasons why one should spend public money on all types of desirable schemes—but it is an invitation which I believe it is proper for the Treasury to remind all Governments they must resist unless they have been able to satisfy themselves that the important financial criteria involved have been satisfied.
Simply because we have not yet reached a conclusion, 14 days may seem a long time to the Evening Standard between hearing of the proposal and concluding on it. It might appear that we have been sitting still, but I think that hon. Members recognise what an achievement it has been for us to have undertaken the intensive analysis of the financial technicalities of the proposal and several rounds of complex negotiations in the relatively short time in which the Department has been aware of the deal.
I make it clear to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that I first became aware that this proposition was on the table in very general terms at around the turn of the year. I think that he knows from his experience of Government that it has been dealt with extraordinarily rapidly and urgently. Incidentally, that is also a reflection of the fact that the deal that we were originally offered was not in any sense a complete deal, as ABB will confirm.
The deal started very much as a back-of-an-envelope suggestion, pretty much as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras outlined it. As I hope that other hon. Members and especially my hon. Friends will appreciate, one cannot do deals of that type involving £0.5 billion on the back of an envelope. They are immensely complex negotiations. They have been undertaken with goodwill and they are continuing.
If I may recap, late last year ABB offered to supply London Underground with 100 seven-car trains similar to those currently being supplied for the Central line. The proposal was a form of sophisticated leasing over 20 years, and obviously it has taken some time for us to establish the exact details of the proposal and to evaluate it in its own right and against other options for the future of the Northern line's rolling stock.
The hon. Member for Streatham referred to some of the available options. He said that he felt that this option was the most attractive; I understand that point of view. He was kind enough to recognise that it is not the only game in town and that we have to satisfy ourselves that it is, on every sensible criterion, the right deal. To try to come to that conclusion, our assessment has focused on two sets of issues: first, whether the deal would satisfy the Government's published criteria for such deals under the terms of the private finance initiative and secondly, whether it would offer value for money.
The proposals are being considered under the terms of the PFI, whose object is to find new ways in which to mobilise the private sector to meet needs that have traditionally been met only by the public sector and to enable the private sector to provide facilities in addition to the existing public sector plans. The whole concept is to encourage a closer partnership between the public and private sectors; an essential plank of the initiative is that the private sector must genuinely assume much of the risk attached to such projects. I say that simply to underline a simple truth.
If the only "advantage" of introducing private finance is that the taxpayer has the dubious privilege of paying finance house rates of interest rather than gilt rates of interest, there is, the House will recognise, little value in the proposition. Too often, leasing is seen simply as a way in which to circumvent inconvenient Treasury spending totals. Yet every Government, of whatever complexion and at whatever time in their life, need to set firm spending totals if they are to control overall Government economic growth. There is no difference between that proposition and the proposition that would be advanced if any other party in the House were sitting on the Government Benches.
The reality is that we have to do a lot more than simply find someone who is prepared to lend the Government money. It is not difficult to find people who are prepared to lend the Government money, because the Government

tend to be a fairly good risk. The important point is that, for the taxpayer to get a benefit out of taking on board private sector finance, there must be a genuine transfer of risk to the private sector so that the taxpayer's risk in the matter is defrayed to offset the increased cost of financing the project.
The practical application of that policy to particular schemes is extremely complicated. However, I hasten to say that we endeavour to apply the conditions in a flexible and deal-driven manner. We do not seek to impose unnecessary constraints on private sector ventures by inventing a mechanism of arbitrary rules and we always welcome ideas such as those from private companies that are prepared to bring their enterprising approach to public sector projects.
We have also sought the advice, as the House knows, of the private finance initiative panel, led by Sir Alastair Morton, which was recently formed for the purpose of assisting the Government to promote and appraise initiatives such as these. We are grateful to the panel for its helpful comments.
Crucially, we must not lose sight of the need to ensure that whatever we do for the Northern line offers proper value for money to the fare payers who use the line and to the taxpayers who provide, and will continue to provide, substantial support to LT's services. We should remind ourselves that we do not want to jump into a deal, no matter how attractive it appears on the surface, if it leaves major risks and major costs for the public sector to face, whether this year, or in five, 10 or 20 years' time. That is the substantial obligation, and no Government should lightly undertake it.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that the Government have come to a leasing deal for the Networker trains for Kent? Will he also confirm that the Treasury is seeking harsher criteria for this new leasing proposition to satisfy—harsher than those that applied to the Networkers? Is that simply because they are obstructive, or is the Minister saying that the Networker leasing deal was a bad deal?

Mr. Norris: The answers to the hon. Gentleman's two questions are yes and no. Yes, the Government are contemplating a leasing deal for Networker trains on Network SouthEast—[Interruption.] I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that we have done that. And no, the Government are not applying more rigid criteria to that proposition.

Mr. Dobson: ABB says that the Government are.

Mr. Norris: It may not understand, and clearly the hon. Gentleman does not understand, that the difference is that, now that the Railways Act 1993 is safely on the statute book, an aftermarket for rolling stock on the heavy railway is in prospect, allowing the Government to take the view that those trains will be hired by train-operating companies for a period and then transferred to new owners. That is the difference between an operating lease and this lease, which is for 20 years to a single lessee with, at this stage, no prospect whatever of an aftermarket—[Laughter.]
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras obviously finds all that terribly difficult to come to terms with. The hon. Member for Streatham is a bit brighter about those matters and has already overtaken the hon. Gentleman. He accepts that, if we are to introduce private


sector capital into the system, one of the great advantages of a franchising concept is precisely that it allows us to contemplate the same kind of aftermarket as exists with BR.
I suspect that the mirth of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras masks his embarrassment. Once one goes beyond the first chapter of the most elementary economics manual, the hon. Gentleman's ability to flap around and miss the point is legendary. Although I wish him well in his present position, if he seriously aspires to sit on the Government Benches he must do a lot better than simply laugh to drown out the common sense that he hears from these Benches, which is so massively inconvenient to him.
Clearly, there is a tremendous advantage to the Government having decided to broaden the scope of investment in the railways—.

Mr. Dobson: What broadening?

Mr. Norris: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to ask that, because I was about to tell him. Broadening so that we look beyond merely the taxpayers and fare payers. They are ever the butt of the Opposition's ire and ever the easy target for those like the hon. Gentleman, whose sole answer to these issues is to shout, "Please write bigger cheques on the public purse," and to point to governmental meanness as the reason why those facilities are not available. We must look beyond that.
The last Labour Government were pathetically inadequate in their funding of London Underground. When the hon. Gentleman was in the House, before the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) arrived, he was part of a Government whose annual funding—

Mr. Dobson: I was not.

Mr. Norris: Well, he supported that Government. I admit that, in those days, they had a few people bright enough to occupy their Front Bench, but things have moved on in the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman was here when his party was in office, and its funding of London Transport, at 1993–94 prices, was the princely sum of £120 million a year. If he cares to check the record, as I suspect he has done, he will see damn well that that is the case. He may like to have a bit of a laugh about that, because it contrasts embarrassingly with the £470 mill ion which the hon. Member for Streatham rightly said was the present funding level at 1993–94 prices, and the amount in excess of £1 billion a year this year, next year and the following year, which will be invested in the system as a whole.

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Mr. Norris: If we are to argue about who is the better funder of the system, I shall take on the hon. Gentleman's arguments any day, as I am about to now.

Mr. Dobson: I invite the House to attach as much credence to what the Minister has said about investment in London Transport as I attach to his recollections of my record as a Member of this House. I have never been a Member when there has been a Labour majority—I was elected in 1979—but I will be.

Mr. Norris: It is a great tribute to the hon. Gentleman that I thought he had been here from the year dot. I readily accept that I was wrong. I hope that he will accept my apologies; I did not mean to misrepresent his length of

service. Admittedly, very few people ever want to associate themselves with that Labour Government, but, given the disparity in funding levels under the two Governments, it comes ill from the hon. Gentleman to lecture me or the Government on the subject.
The hon. Gentleman was, however, right about the two conclusions of the Select Committee, which were—in the first paragraph of its report on London—that the Government are spending record amounts on the system, and that they are still not enough. The legacy of half a century of underfunding will now have to be dealt with. This is a serious and good debate about how to augment the funding for the system. The answer of course is to bring in private capital. That does not mean accepting a cheque on any terms, however. We do not accept any deal merely because it is put to us. We have to be rigorous about ensuring that these private finance initiatives fit into a sensible financial matrix.

Mr. John Marshall: It was perhaps too much to hope for that this debate could be conducted in non-partisan terms, given that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is taking part in it.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the real locust years for LT followed 1981, when the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) was in charge of the GLC and when the investment in London Transport was much lower than it is today?

Mr. Norris: You might chide me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I strayed too far into the locust years. The idea might find more favour if there is a debate on agriculture later tonight.
The House will have noted what my hon. Friend said. If we had a prolonged debate on the impact of the "Fares Fair" policy on London Transport, I would point out that, however well intentioned that proposition was—and it was—it was a disaster for London. The experience pointed up some uncomfortable lessons. I note the arrival of the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Dowd), who I know takes an interest in these matters.
One lesson was that a whole lot of additional journeys were generated, but they did not displace journeys made by private car; they were known as additional opportunity journeys. More costs are created for the system, but the revenues flowing into it are massively reduced. Reductions in ticket prices are not compensated for by increases in ridership—which was never more than 8 or 9 per cent. The result is a huge reduction in the net funding of the system—a gap that then has to be filled by the taxpayer. The gap was usually several hundred million pounds.
A second false premise is that the only way to attract people to public transport is to lower its price. The fact is that we need to use both the carrot and the stick. We certainly have to make public transport more attractive. My own view is that fares are the last thing to look at. Londoners always say that they will regard the system as representing good value only provided that it works. That is the key: above all, we want a reliable system.

Mr. Dobson: Just to get one or two facts straight, will the Minister confirm that the limit on capital investment in London Underground when it was the responsibility of the GLC was set by the Tory Government?

Mr. Norris: So far as it goes, that is an accurate statement. However, I fear that the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman is asking the House to draw may not be what he suggests.
That was not the only source of capital funding available to the GLC at that time. Had it wished to do so, it could have augmented the amount of capital spent. There is no evidence that the GLC wanted to do that. At the time, it thought, as so many Administrations, both Labour and Conservative, had thought over the previous half century, that one could simply postpone the necessary investment to the next year because the system would always last just a little longer.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and I agree that that is no longer acceptable. He and I and others in the House are responsible for dealing with that historic backlog of underinvestment. We have to be creative about how we address it.
Having already spoken about the various strictures that apply to the financing of the deal, we must not neglect to ensure that the proposal represents good value for money when we compare it with other options such as refurbishment, option to which the hon. Member for Streatham referred. There are a variety of subsets of refurbishment from major refurbishment through to essential refurbishment, which provides one-person-operated trains and not much more.
Whatever approach we take, we must always ensure that the proposition is exposed to sufficient competition so that we get the best deal available. I am grateful for the understanding of the hon. Member for Streatham and other hon. Gentlemen.
Bearing in mind the perfectly sensible comments made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras about employment prospects at ABB in Derby, if we decided that a scheme on the lines of the ABB proposal was worth taking forward, the next step would be for London Underground to invite proposals in open competition. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South said, and the hon. Member for Streatham confirmed, in this day and age we want ultimately to ensure that the taxpayer gets good value for his or her investment in new rolling stock.
As the hon. Gentleman knows from his previous incarnation, ABB, albeit an excellent manufacturer of trains, is not the only manufacturer of trains, and no doubt others in the Community will wish to know that the competition for the supply of trains on the terms ABB has proposed will be made available if the scheme goes ahead.
I understand that a competition advertised in the Official Journal will be able to attract interest from the European Community. I also understand that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is fully signed up to the idea of Community participation, and I am sure that that does not cause him any grief.
We fully recognise that much remains to be done, including rolling stock modernisation on the Northern line. We are considering the ABB proposal entirely on its merits against the criteria established by the private finance initiative and the need to demonstrate good value for money. We must not lose sight of the fact that very substantial amounts of public money are involved.
I assure the House that we are evaluating this complex proposal as a matter of considerable urgency. We have reached the final stages of discussion, and I hope that the Government will announce its conclusions within the next few days.

Orders of the Day — London (Government)

Mr. Neil Gerrard: Perhaps it would be appropriate to start by putting the debate in context. We are having the debate shortly after the Secretary of State issued a consultation paper last November with the setting up of London First and the London Forum. Of course, it is roughly 10 years since the abolition of the Greater London council and the loss of any strategic voice for London.
I welcome the Government's belated recognition of the need to have a dialogue with Londoners and the consultation that is taking place. It is regrettable that the Secretary of State has made it clear already that he is not interested in responses that suggest a need for a strategic authority. If he is not prepared to listen to views that conflict with his on the structure of London government or the role of national government in London and the resource needs of London, the exercise that is being undertaken will remain fundamentally flawed.
It is perhaps interesting to look back approximately 10 years to what was said at the time of the abolition of the GLC about what systems of government London would have and compare that with what is happening now, and where we stand. If we look back at the Department of the Environment paper entitled "Streamlining the Cities", we find statements such as:
The abolition of these upper-tier authorities"—
of course, it was not just the GLC—
will streamline local government in the metropolitan areas.
The paper goes on to say:
It will also provide a system which is simpler for the public to understand, in that responsibility for virtually all local services will rest with a single authority.
The Department of the Environment paper entitled "After the GLC" says:
Local government should be as close as possible to local people if councils are to be properly accountable and to provide services local people want efficiently and economically.
The question was asked in that same paper:
Will responsibility for GLC services be split up between a range of unaccountable organisations and 'quangos'? Is Whitehall taking over? No.
If we compare that to where we are now in terms of who governs London and makes the critical decisions, the contrast is immediate. London now has a vast number of appointed unaccountable bodies, or bodies made up of representatives from the boroughs, usually one per borough. In many aspects of London services, we have government by appointment.
I have seen estimates recently showing that more than 270 bodies or quangos spend money in London. The rights of people in London to question and to attend the meetings—even to know of the meetings of some of those bodies—are often virtually non-existent, yet huge amounts of public money are spent on services such as health, training, urban regeneration, further education, museums and transport, not all of which are post-GLC.
The variety of services that are covered is growing all the time. I suggest that it would be appropriate to include, for instance, housing action trusts, one of which partly covers my constituency; its budget this year is some £34 million.
On education and grant-maintained schools, a growing number of schools are moving out of local authority control. The list is enormous. It includes the London residuary body, further education colleges, which are


funded directly from the Further Education Funding Council, training and enterprise councils, city challenge, London scientific services and the various bits of what used to be London Transport—London Buses Ltd., London Underground Ltd., LRT Bus Engineering, the London Docklands development corporation and the London pension fund authority. Many of those bodies, but not all, were set up to take over former GLC functions.
There are also joint bodies, such as the London fire and civil defence authority, the organisation involved in the London boroughs grant scheme, the London waste regulation authority and the waste authorities that cover the various parts of London. We are dealing more and more often in those cases with a single-purpose appointed body.
The behaviour of such bodies is governed by rules far less stringent than any applying to local authorities, on a range of issues. Local authorities must hold their meetings in public, for instance, but many quangos do not. How do the public obtain access to information? Again, there are statutory rules governing access to information in the local authority sector, but try to obtain information, as an ordinary member of the public, about what is happening in a hospital trust, on the governing body of a grant-maintained school or on the board of a housing action trust, and it is a very different matter.
The audit arrangements also vary enormously. Can someone who feels aggrieved go to the ombudsman? What are the methods for obtaining redress? Experience in my surgeries tells me that, increasingly, people do not even know to whom they should complain, because it is so unclear who is responsible.
These matters are important. As I said earlier, we are dealing with bodies that are spending public money. Several billion pounds are spent. It approaches the amounts spent by London boroughs. The figures can, of course, be added up in different ways, but, according to a conservative estimate, at least £6 billion was spent in 1992–93. I am trying to avoid double counting—counting regional and district health authorities, family health services authorities and hospital trusts twice. Often, the same money is being spent; money spent by a district health authority ends up with a hospital trust. Without that double counting, we are still looking at more than £6 billion.
It is also interesting to consider the people who are spending that money, and what they are given. Local authority members are entitled to an attendance allowance, but I guess that few members of London authorities receive more than £3,000 or £5,000 a year, and many people receive less than that. Let us consider the position in the quangos. Virtually £1.25 million is spent on annual remunerations for chairs and directors of district health authorities; nearly £1 million is spent on the chairs and directors of NHS trusts in London; £145,000 is spent on the chair and directors of the London residuary body.
By and large, the members of those bodies are appointed. There are no longer any councillors on regional or district health authorities. None is directly appointed to NHS trusts. There are no councillors on London Regional Transport or the London residuary body. On the bodies to which some councillors are appointed, the numbers are small. According to estimates that I have seen, about 1,700 people sit on the boards of the quangos across London whose spending adds up to £6 billion. Of those 1,700, perhaps 2 per cent. are elected councillors; the rest are appointed.
In some areas, it is becoming more difficult to find people to take on such jobs. The grant-maintained schools are moving to virtual independence, but, even in locally managed schools, parent governors in particular are beginning to realise the amount of work involved, and the difficulties entailed in trying to assume financial responsibilities and manage budgets—a task for which they have had no training and been given virtually no support.
It is not simply a question of financial probity and accounts; there is also the major question of public accountability. Regardless of whether a local authority's policies are acceptable to any individual, at least it has open procedures. Local authorities are accountable. Controlling parties can be voted out of office and people can and do take an interest in what their local authorities are doing and in their performance. More local factors are now coming into play in local elections than has happened for some years. It is good for people to take an interest and to use their votes to express that interest.
In much of the system we are seeing fragmentation—fragmentation without accountability. The fragmentation into single-purpose, sometimes quite small, bodies means that there is also fragmentation of decision-making. Decisions that are essentially related are taken in isolation. There is a complete lack of public accountability and public influence. It does not matter how well intentioned the members of the quango boards are, the lack of accountability is an inevitable result of that sort of structure.
The major problem that follows from that is a lack of co-ordination and clear strategy across London as a whole. Whatever arrangements are made for the bodies to co-ordinate their activities, none of them has an overview. None has the authority or the power to develop an overview and there is little incentive for them to do so, because they are responsible for only a single service in perhaps a small area. Contacts occur, often at officer level, but there is little overlapping membership between the various quangos. Therefore, real linkages often do not develop.
The joint boards have one member from each borough and, on paper, they may seem to be accountable. However, I believe that similar problems often arise. I was a leader of a local authority in London before 1990 and we had to find people to go on the joint boards and we had to work through them. From that experience, I know that there are all sorts of problems.
First, there is the problem of finding people to go on the boards. They must be local councillors who have the time to devote to organisations such as the London fire and civil defence authority, the London waste regulation authority or the local waste regulation authority. There are certainly difficulties with local authorities monitoring the activities of the joint boards. There is the problem of local authorities, acting as an authority, rather than as an individual who happens to be on the board, having a clear influence on decision-making.
From all the fragmentation and lack of accountability there is a clear conclusion—there is a democratic deficit in London which can be remedied only by some form of Londonwide strategic authority. That can be seen by looking at service delivery, although I am not suggesting that we want a Londonwide authority that necessarily becomes involved in enormous amounts of service delivery.
We have just had a debate on the Northern line. Transport is a perfect example of what is going wrong in London now. Earlier this afternoon, I happened to come across a diagram showing the organisation of transport in London and the various bodies involved in planning transport in London. I appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you may not be able to see the diagram as you are too far away, but it resembles a tube map. There are so many different organisations and bodies involved in trying to plan transport in London. It is ludicrous.
The 1984 Department of the Environment paper "After the GLC" described what was going to happen:
The Secretary of State will provide a framework of guidance on traffic matters … This, together with his oversight of British Rail, London Regional Transport, and their mutual co-operation of services, will ensure that a comprehensive and balanced approach is adopted towards transport to make it easier for people to move around London and to improve environmental and living conditions.
I doubt whether many people who read the debate on the Northern line will agree that their ability to move around London easily has improved.
London Underground's management have spoken of the lack of investment, yet, despite their protestations, last year's autumn statement cut investment in London transport by more than £200 million. Each of London's major transport infrastructure issues that have been debated frequently in the House in the past year or two—the channel tunnel link, crossrail, the Jubilee line extension and the proposed Hackney to Chelsea line—has been at the planning stage for years. Shifts of policy lead to uncertainties about whether private finance will contribute. Nobody is in control.
Such problems apply equally to quite small matters. Quite a lot of local councils in London, of all political shades, have tried to make cycling a priority and have created cycling lanes to make life easier for cyclists. The London Cycling Campaign says that it is concerned about the confusing array of schemes that are created because of the lack of co-ordination between boroughs and the lack of a London-wide co-ordinating body.
There is a consensus among people who use public transport and the roads that travelling in London is a nightmare and that it is getting worse, yet we have no long-term strategic planning authority to deal with transport in London.
The problem does not apply only to transport. I am sure that no hon. Member can think of another capital city in Europe that must do without an elected citywide authority. Some hon. Members are aware of the difficulties that have arisen in recent years in trying to put together London bids on an individual borough basis for European money through the regional development fund and for assisted area status. Without a citywide authority, London is losing out and will continue to lose out on European initiatives. Some people believe that London would have done rather better in attracting the Olympic or Commonwealth games if it had had a citywide authority to put a bid together.
Why should we have to rely on ad hoc arrangements between boroughs, the Association of London Authorities or the London Boroughs Association to co-ordinate bids for assistance? Why is there no London authority to offer significant assistance to local industry?
There are no structural connections between the training and enterprise councils. Large-scale economic development work cannot be sensibly carried out on a single-borough basis. Why is there no one to take a Londonwide view of what should be done to deal with unemployment?
With the best will in the world, such issues cannot be tackled with maximum efficiency at borough level or by joint bids or work between boroughs, however useful such work may be—and I am not decrying it at all. That is not happening at maximum efficiency. The ALA and the LBA do not have the powers to fill some of the gaps.
We cannot afford to let the present drift continue. We need a new governing body for London—a view shared by the vast majority of Londoners. Recent polls found that four out of five Londoners believe that there should be a new Londonwide authority, one that will not get involved in service delivery on the ground but that will be concerned with the major strategic issues affecting the whole of London, such as economic reconstruction, improvements in public safety and rebuilding the national health service. The recent specialty reviews are a classic example of fragmented decision-making. There was a review of cancer and heart specialties, among others, but no one sat down and tried to co-ordinate what was happening across the board.
We need a Londonwide authority with some responsibility for the fire and emergency services, the type of services that cannot conceivably be most efficiently planned borough by borough. We need a Londonwide authority for policing and for sport and the arts. There is lots of room for local initiative but there is no one to take the overall view.
Apart from vast improvements in planning, the existence of such an authority would mean an increase in public involvement and in public accountability. Individuals could become involved and there could be regular consultation with both sides of industry. We do not need to set up a vast bureaucracy. But what we especially do not need is what we have now—government by quango.

Mr. Jim Dowd: I shall not detain the House for long—I am sure that everyone will be pleased to hear that—but I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on securing this debate. It is very significant to Londoners and to the city itself, but I am sure that it also greatly irritates Ministers because it deals with an issue that will not go away, because a glaring injustice has been, and is being, perpetrated on the people of London by the Government. That will remain the case until the transparently obvious solution that the Government have been trying to avoid at all costs—the establishment of a strategic authority responsible for co-ordinating many of the services provided to the people who visit or live and work in London—is accepted.
I believe that, in the fulness of time, this issue will come to resemble the history of the poll tax. Many of those who were enthusiastic about the abolition of the Londonwide authority were also enthusiastic about the poll tax. We were told that all that was required was time for it to settle down and that, once the initial hostility and misunderstandings had been dealt with, the poll tax would be established as what one Minister who represents a London constituency described as a "vote winner". Everyone


knows what happened to the poll tax, and the truth that was staring the Government in the face ultimately overwhelmed them and, more particularly, the previous Prime Minister. If anything was responsible for her enforced and unwilling departure from office, it was the fact that members of the Conservative party realised that they could not win a general election while attempting to defend the poll tax. Therefore, the poll tax had to go.
It is now clear that London and Londoners have lost out since the abolition of Londonwide bodies such as the Greater London council and the Inner London education authority. That is becoming ever more apparent to anyone who lives or works in London. It will be extremely entertaining to see how members of the Government manage to get out of the predicament that they have created for themselves and move back towards a co-ordinated strategic authority for London.
Whenever that is suggested, it is said that we want the return of the Greater London council. People conjure up images of county hall filled again with public servants adjudicating and providing and administering services. Sadly, that is not likely. Indeed, it is not possible. I freely admit that in many cases it is probably not desirable.
In the case of education, it would be fatuous to try to recreate the Inner London education authority. However, great harm was done by the abolition of that body. The figures relating to the education of the under-fives and the post-16s show that Londoners have lost many opportunities as a result.
However, it would not be reasonable to assume that those services could be put back together under a single body. For good or ill, they are with the boroughs for the foreseeable future, if only because anything else would be far too disruptive and far too difficult for the people involved. We all know that some things, once broken, cannot be put back together. Sadly, the excellence that was ILEA has gone.
But there are other issues, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow covered them in some detail in his quite compelling case. I refer, for example, to transport, the environment, the emergency services—including the provision, for the first time ever, of a Londonwide body for the police—matters relating to economic regeneration and, in particular, matters relating to health. The subject of health care provision in London is extremely instructive.
In effect, the Tomlinson report represented the substitution of a Londonwide view of health and health requirements. The fact that the Government have drawn the conclusions that have been drawn is a different issue. That some of the finest centres of medical excellence in the world—not just in the country—are now threatened with closure, after centuries of service to the people of the capital, is a national disgrace. But this is in some respects a side issue. The main point is that Tomlinson gave the game away—that what was required was a Londonwide view of health provision.
The Department of Health is now reorganising the regional health authorities. There are to be two instead of four. The existing bodies will be abolished from 1 April this year, and we shall have the South Thames and the North Thames regional authorities. This shows that the move towards a regional view of health provision in London is inexorable. What is being done is to some extent just a shamefaced halfway house to disguise the

Government's embarrassment. There is no doubt that London needs health care, amongst other services, at a regional and strategic level.
We have been presented with a consultation paper entitled "Making the Best Better". I wonder how long that slogan was sweated over and which consultancy was used to originate such a striking title. The very publication of that document is proof positive of the fact that even in the benighted ranks of the Department of the Environment there is understanding that the situation in London is untenable and must be addressed.
The Secretary of State started to foam at the mouth, and steam came out of his ears, when, at the press conference, people asked, "Well, what about a Londonwide authority?" I am led to believe that the right hon. Gentleman was almost reduced to chewing the carpet, having said on three occasions that that was the one thing he did not want to consider. He did not want to know about any question of a Londonwide authority, despite the fact that it was quite clear that that was the one thing that almost everyone else did want to know about. Certainly it is what Londoners want to know about.
I should not speak too unkindly about the Secretary of State, because he is a former Member of Parliament for Lewisham, West. He represented the constituency for one term but, without being too unkind, I must tell the House that the good citizens of Forest Hill, Sydenham and Catford decided that that was enough and dispensed with his services in 1974. None the less, the right hon. Gentleman is still remembered in that part of the world with what could be called a curious affection. However, I am not sure that his experience of representing a London constituency has not clouded his judgment, in that he has not forgiven the people of Lewisham, West for what they did in 1974, and now seeks to wreak revenge on them for their temerity.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will mention the result of the consultation, which we await keenly. The last time that a question was asked about it, about 10,000 responses had been garnered from the 750,000 documents circulated, and we believe that the initial findings are due to be published about now. It would be interesting to know what is recommended or suggested.
Some time ago I tabled an early-day motion—I also wrote to the Secretary of State asking for his views on the matter—suggesting a simple way of dealing with the question of a strategic authority for London. The opportunity arises once every four years. It will come round in a couple of months' time, and it would reduce all the arguments between the parties in the House. The solution would be simply to ask Londoners themselves whether they want a strategic authority.
I refer, of course, to the borough council elections, which will take place in the first week in May. It would be the simplest thing in the world to include a single question on a ballot paper for the people who take part in the elections asking them whether they want the return—or rather, the establishment—of a strategic co-ordinated authority for London. I have no doubt that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said, that would produce an overwhelming result in favour—and that is why the Government would not even attempt to carry it out. That exercise would dispense with all the questions.
I notice that the Government Benches are conspicuously empty, but that is hardly surprising; the House is hardly brimful at the moment.

Mr. Keith Vaz: There are more Members on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Dowd: Indeed, but one would expect that; it is a matter of course when topics of great import are being discussed. I had half expected to see the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) in his place—although I realise that he had the previous debate. Clearly he put a lot of time and effort into that and has now gone to seek some deserved rest and solace.
Whenever the idea of a Londonwide authority is mentioned, the hon. Member for Hendon, South usually jumps up to tell us about a zebra crossing in Ealing that was the cause of a tremendous dispute between Ealing borough council and the Greater London council in the late 1970s or early 1980s. That incident was such a formative experience in the hon. Gentleman's life, and provided him with such a scientific analysis of the dichotomy affecting the government of London, that he was persuaded that the abolition of the GLC was the only way to deal with the problem and to prevent any repetition of the trouble.
People may often form their views as result of a strange array of reasons and experiences, but I have always felt that that story provides an extremely thin argument for abolishing the authority and doing away with a voice for London and Londoners. Of course there will be a problem of overlap between authorities, but that problem is happily faced elsewhere, not only in Britain but throughout Europe and the rest of the western world.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has already said, London is the only city in the western world that does not have a citywide authority, or a single voice to speak on behalf of the capital. London is being sold short, and Londoners know it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow gave what he said was a conservative estimate of £6 billion being spent through quangos in London. I did some calculations on this. I asked parliamentary questions, I asked questions through the Library and I put them to the various organisations involved. The figure we came to was something like £8.5 billion, rather higher than the £6 billion that my hon. Friend mentioned—and we had not even totted them all up at that stage. The money is public money, it is spent in London, and it is spent on behalf of Londoners, yet no one has any say in how it is spent.
It is perfectly proper that public funds should always be subject to scrutiny and questioning. What accountability really means is not just that those who spend the money are called to account for what they do and are forced to explain how they are deploying public funds, to whose benefit and for what reasons. The ultimate value Of accountability is that it can and does exact the highest price and the most sacred element of a democracy: if we are unhappy with the explanations that we receive, we can remove people from office, from the place where the decisions are taken, and we can replace them with others.
That is what democracy, at its highest, is about. That is what the quangocracy that has grown up, not just in London but throughout the country, more and more deprives us of the ability to do. Faceless, often nameless, people decide how billions of pounds of public money are spent on crucial public services. The people of London have no say in the decisions and no influence on them, and as often as not they do not even know who make them.
The case for a Londonwide authority is compelling. It will continue to be compelling until such time as it is

addressed and a Londonwide authority is re-established. My preference—and I will be perfectly frank about it, as I am something of a traditionalist—is for the return of the London county council. London enjoyed its greatest advances under the enlightened policies of the LCC, certainly after the war and until reorganisation in the 1960s. None the less, I must probably reconcile myself to the fact that it will not come to pass.
There is a need for London to speak with one voice. London is far more than the sum of its individual parts. However hard the boroughs work in their own way to meet the needs of their communities—and, regardless of the political persuasion of any particular borough, the needs are met in a way that accords with the wishes of the local people—they will never be able to present London as an entity, projecting its full weight or focus on the value and potential that is currently wasted.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister says. I imagine that we shall be given the customary response, that everything is so much better than it was, and we shall probably hear a raft of statistics to support it. The one thing that the Government cannot run away from is the fact that Londoners do not believe them.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on his good fortune in securing the debate and his good judgment in choosing this important subject. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) on his contribution. He made the extremely important point that London alone, of all the major western capital cities, has no citywide government. That observation of itself ought to give us pause for thought.
Whatever one may think about the democratic implications, it ought to raise the question whether London is well served by the structure that has now been in place for eight years, with no democratic body responsible for citywide government. At the very least, we ought to compare London in that context with other cities that have the advantage of a citywide authority. When we make such a comparison, I regret to say that the results are not flattering to London.
We have just had a debate about London transport, specifically on the Northern line. It is symptomatic of the decline of London transport, once the envy of Europe and the most efficient system for conveying people around a major capital city, that it is now sadly lagging in the slow lane in comparison with other European cities. Their rapid transport systems and modern metros make our system look more and more what it is—rundown, neglected, unreliable, uncomfortable and overcrowded. The Minister tried to get away from the name that the Evening Standard has rightly tagged to the Northern line—the misery line.
That experience applies not only to the Northern line. It is one with which anyone who uses the other London Underground lines will be familiar, to his or her cost. People who use and depend on Network SouthEast and London's buses are also familiar with the problems stemming from under-investment and the failure to maintain an adequate transport system.
Of course, it is not just a problem of transport. Across a range of services the same sad story repeats itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd)


rightly highlighted some health issues. One sees the problems associated with a lack of coherent government, fragmentation, delegation of power to unelected quangos and the failure of our Government to run the services for which they have assumed responsibility.
We have seen the tragic disaster that has befallen the London ambulance service in the past two years. It routinely fails on two out of five calls to meet its performance target of reaching the scene within 14 minutes of call-out. That disgraceful and shameful record is the consequence of taking away responsibility for that service from a democratically body and giving it to an unelected quango, supposedly answerable to Ministers.
The right hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who will wind up this debate, is responsible for housing. Sadly, we have to recognise that the symbol of housing in London in the 1990s has become the cardboard box. London still has the worst homelessness problem of any city in Britain. It still suffers a chronic shortage of affordable homes and is failing lamentably to generate the necessary supply of affordable rented homes for people in need.
The most important service of all has to be the London economy. When we look at what has happened to the London economy, we see the sad truth. The city that was once the most prosperous in the world, the powerhouse of the whole United Kingdom economy, has become a city that boasts the dubious distinction of having the second highest unemployment rate of any of the regions in Britain and the city that is rapidly becoming the country's dole capital.
All that hardly supports the case that London has benefited from not having a citywide government. I am sure that the Minister will tell us that it is not the Government's fault. Someone else is always to blame. I have no doubt that we shall he given excuses. The Minister will say that the problems are nothing to do with the abolition of the Greater London council, the burgeoning quangos or the Government's assuming responsibility for various services that used to be in the remit of democratically local authorities.
I am sure that we shall also be told that other European cities have their problems, too. They certainly have. But with purposeful and, in many cases, powerful city governments to represent them, they are far better placed to respond to those problems and act to promote their interests. In an increasingly competitive world, where big cities increasingly compete against each other, I do not need to remind the House of the importance of London being able to fight for its interests and secure its advantage. We have to think only about the sad saga of London's failure to secure the European central bank to realise the risks that we run in this increasingly competitive world, if London is not able to pursue and promote its interests effectively.
The document which the Government published a few months ago, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West referred, begins with some splendid rhetoric about how wonderful London is. It describes London as a
world class financial capital
and the
foremost European financial centre, way ahead of Paris and Frankfurt.
Would that that were the case. But if it were, would there be any doubt that the European central bank would be

coming to London rather than to Frankfurt? If such a service is supposed to be central to London's economy and we are supposed to lead the world in it, why did we fail to secure the European central bank?
We must consider why London is failing to compete effectively in the European and international arena. Another example of where we failed was the Olympics. The city of Barcelona certainly has its problems, but it was able to host the Olympic games recently in a highly imaginative and succesful way.
We can compare its success with London's sad failure even to become the British contender for the Commonwealth games. We could not even manage to achieve that. Despite Manchester's failure in the Olympics and despite the view that Manchester had had its chance, London was unable to mount a bid to make it the British contender for the Commonwealth games. That is a sad reflection on the ability of our capital city to fight for its interests and to secure a rightful role on the world stage.
Let us consider what happened when London looked for funding from the European regional development fund under the objective 2 programme. Decisions were being made around Christmas, and there was no citywide authority in London to put together London's bid. There was no citywide authority to promote London in Brussels. Instead, it was left to the Minister for Industry to represent London's case in Brussels. There were problems because, inevitably, with no citywide authority to put the case, each individual local authority pushed for its maximum advantage. Therefore, the bid for London was far larger than was realistically feasible. Every borough rightly and properly pushed its own interests.
There was no citywide authority to take the interests of London as a whole, to consider the competing claims and to reach a decision on an appropriate-sized bid for London, within the framework set by the European Union, that was likely to succeed. Instead, all the London borough bids were packaged together and the package was submitted to Brussels, which was told to make a decision. Of course, it did so—it was good news for part of London, the Lea valley, but extremely bad news for many other parts.
I am thinking particularly of the east Thames corridor, a district that has suffered massively from the loss of manufacturing industry and from serious industrial decline and unemployment. It certainly qualified for objective 2 support, but failed to receive any. That is a further example of London's being unable to secure its best interests in the European context.
That is one part of what has happened to London since the Greater London council was abolished. Central Government not only have taken over functions that should have been discharged by a democratically elected local authority but carry them out badly. The other side of the picture shows a proliferation of quangos, rightly referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, West and for Walthamstow.
Wherever one looks around London one sees evidence of the growing power and influence of the unelected, unaccountable and profoundly unloved quango. The health service is overrun with quangos—there are managers, public relations staff, accountants, administrators, bureaucrats, the people who thrive under the new health service and buy cars for themselves when they are closing hospitals. That is evidence of the quangocracy of the health service in London.
Quangos affect not just the health service but education, housing, training and urban development. In all services there are quangos: funding councils, training and enterprise councils, housing action trusts, urban development corporations, city challenge boards and many others that were named by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. I see from a report by Professor John Stewart that it is estimated that there are about 272 such organisations in London, combining annual budgets estimated at between £6 billion and £8.5 billion of public expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West suggested that £8.5 billion might even be an underestimate, because he had lost count at that point of how many quangos had been taken into account and there remained others that had not been considered.
Let us contrast that with the prospectus when the Greater London council was abolished—when the Government proposed the abolition of the GLC and when they carried it out. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has quoted, rightly, from "Streamlining the Cities", the White Paper that was issued to justify the GLC's abolition. He quoted, with appropriate irony, those comments about streamlining local government, removing sources of conflict and tension and providing systems that were simpler for the public to understand. They have a hollow ring.
It is also worth remembering what Ministers said when they moved the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill which abolished the Greater London council. Moving the Second Reading of the Bill on 3 December 1984, the right hon. Lord Jenkin, formerly the Secretary of State for the Environment, said:
They say—
referring to us, the Opposition—
that, after abolition, Whitehall will take over. Wrong again. Only 5 per cent. of service spending in London, and virtually none outside London, will go outside local government.
It gets better:
They say"—
that is us—
that the abolition councils will be replaced by quangos. Wrong again. Only two permanent new appointed bodies will be created—the advisory London planning commission and the Merseyside museums trustee body."—[Official Report, 3 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 36.]
I suppose that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would say, "You can't expect Ministers to tell the truth to Parliament all the time, can you?"
The truth is that the Government were profoundly wrong when they used their majority in the House to force through the abolition of the Greater London council. They were wrong in their forecasts of what would happen. They were profoundly wrong to take away from the people of London their democratic right to choose who should govern them. It was a profoundly wrong decision and it has had disastrous consequences for London.
The Government have been wrong in trying to hide themselves from the consequences of those actions. The most pathetic recent example has been the Government's glossy document "London: Making the Best Better", masquerading as a consultation paper, which, in 43 pages containing 53 glossy photographs and 63 itemised features on which Londoners were asked to comment, does not

once mention the way in which the government of London is best organised—as though, by not being mentioned, that issue will miraculously go away.
I have to ask the Minister, how many respondents who sent in their views on that consultation paper raised the issue that did not dare to speak its name? How many respondents, without prompting, without being invited to do so, told the Government that they believed that London should have a democratically elected organisation? Indeed, of those who referred to that issue, what proportion said that they supported a democratically elected body for London, and what proportion said that they opposed it? It would be interesting to have responses to those questions and I hope that the Minister will give them to us.
The Government may try to run away from the issue, but they cannot hide from the electorate. The London electorate are poised to deliver a crushing verdict on the Government, not only in the forthcoming London borough elections but in the general election that will follow. When a Labour Government are returned to power—as they will be—we will restore to Londoners the basic democratic right to elect their own citywide government.
Our commitment to London is to establish a democratically elected organisation, taking responsibility for strategic functions. It will be a streamlined body looking at matters such as planning, transportation, economic development and other London-wide functions, such as fire and civil defence. It will be a body able to speak for London and to represent it in the European and international arena. It will be able to represent London's interests and to secure London's advantage in a way that London has missed so badly in the past eight years.
Our commitment to London is to give back to our capital city its self-respect and its own democratic institutions. In place of quangos, in place of Tory placemen and in place of Government mismanagement, we shall give back to Londoners a Greater London authority that will look after London's interests.

The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction (Sir George Young): I join other hon. Members in commending the good fortune of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) in being selected to initiate a debate on this topic. If I were being courteous, I would say that he made a thoughtful, if rather nostalgic, speech. If I were being more critical, I would say that it was resolutely backward-looking, devoid of new ideas, firmly committed to living in the past and refusing to recognise the reality of London today.
I give one example of the hon. Gentleman's misguided analysis. He said quite a lot about quangos, and one of the quangos on which he touched was the housing action trust in the borough that he represents. He sought to portray the HAT as an undemocratic and unaccountable body. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that his constituents, the tenants of those estates, were given a choice in a ballot. They chose to leave the local authority and to move to a housing action trust. Some 75 per cent. of them turned out, and 81 per cent. of them voted to move to the housing action trust.
Against that background, for the hon. Gentleman to say that there is something undemocratic and unaccountable about the decision to move to the housing action trust is to deceive the House. Once the housing action trust was set up, the tenants elected some of their fellows to represent


them. The hon. Gentleman said that quangos involved no public accountability or public interest. Having visited one of the estates last week, I tell him that I saw much more interest in what happens to the estates on the part of the people who live there than there would ever have been if they had remained tenants of the local authority.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that if, by any chance, his party was returned to office the tenants who voted to come under a HAT would, against their wishes, be sent back to the London borough of Waltham Forest from which they had voluntarily decided to secede.

Mr. Gerrard: The Minister knows well that the tenants voted to go for the HAT because that was the only thing that was on offer. It was the only conceivable way in which the work could have been done. If the local authority had been allowed the means to do the work—it was the local authority that developed the schemes and involved the tenants—it would have been far further down the road than it is now. When the HAT finishes, the tenants will, I hope, have the choice of where they go.

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Of course the tenants had a choice. They could have voted no, as a number of tenants did when they were given precisely the choice that was given to the tenants of Waltham Forest. The hon. Gentleman's constituents voted for the HAT by a majority more substantial, I suspect, than that by which they voted for him. Against that background, for him to say that the system is undemocratic, unaccountable and run by a quango is to let down his constituents who are deeply committed to the concept of a housing action trust. When they read his speech, will they think that he is really representing their views?

Mr. Raynsford: The Minister said that the tenants in Waltham Forest had voted to leave the local authority and to go for the HAT. Does not he recall the fairly length negotiations that took place before the tenants were prepared to consider the proposition? They insisted that they had the right to return to the local authority after the HAT period, if they so wished. It was only when they were given that undertaking that they were prepared to vote in favour of the HAT.

Sir George Young: That is indeed the case. However, that in no way demolishes my point. The tenants voluntarily decided to leave a locally elected local authority and to come under a quango. They have that right. Not only does the hon. Member for Walthamstow criticise the Government but he criticises his constituents for exercising their choice. He will regret his comment.
I have seen estimates from the London Boroughs Association showing that, had the Greater London council continued in being for a further six years, it would have cost Londoners £1.3 billion. That money could be better spent than by continuing the GLC. The hon. Gentleman mentioned cycling. I am deeply committed to cycling. We had the GLC for 20 years, but what did it do for cyclists? More has happened for cyclists since the GLC was abolished than it achieved in 20 years.
As for a referendum on the GLC, the hon. Gentleman knows how decisions are taken in this country. We said in our 1983 election manifesto that we would abolish the GLC, and we had one of the best results in London that we have ever had. We subsequently introduced the legislation

and got it through both Houses. That is now the law and will remain the law until a Government say in their manifesto that they will bring back the GLC.
At the last general election, restoration of the GLC simply was not an issue in my constituency. I spent a lot of time banging on doors but met few people who said, "I would vote for you and your party, Sir George, if you were committed to bringing back the GLC, but because you are not, I shall vote Labour." The issue simply did not emerge in my constituency or anywhere else.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West made a touching remark about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He said that my right hon. Friend was remembered with curious affection in his constituency. My right hon. Friend is deeply committed to the well-being of London and has a soft spot for Lewisham. He now lives in my constituency and, as chairman of the Cabinet Sub-committee responsible for London, is deeply committed to improving the well-being of Londoners.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow added up all the money that was spent through what he called quangos and suggested that it should be spent through local authorities. I wonder whether the housing associations, for example, would welcome the proposition that, instead of getting funds from the Housing Corporation, they should in future depend on funds from local authorities. I think that the hon. Gentleman would find a lot of resistance to that proposition.
The main argument against the case put by hon. Members is their own document, the "London Policy Forum". They criticise the Government for quangos when the number of quangos that they would set up is legion: a Greater London authority; a national park to cover the Thames: a police authority; a strategic health authority for Greater London; an independent public arbitration and advocacy service; a national standards body for education; a development agency; a transport authority; an environmental protection agency; a cultural education commission; a cultural education partnership; a human rights commission; an urban design partnership; and a London film commission.
Opposition Members have a nerve to criticise the Government for having quangos in London when they have recently produced a London Policy Forum, to which the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) gave evidence. Has this document no connection with London Members of Parliament? Is it of no relevance? Will the hon. Gentleman disown it?

Mr. Raynsford: Yes, I will. It has no relevance to any London Member of Parliament, it is not an approved document, it has not been endorsed by the national executive committee, and it has no basis whatever.

Sir George Young: That will come as an enormous disappointment to Mr. Terry Ashton, general secretary of the Labour party, who wrote on 16 September to a number of Labour Members:
The London Policy Forum is being used as a model for regional policy forums in other parts of the country. With its detailed analysis of the problems and challenges facing London, and its many innovative ideas, I am sure that this document will be of major benefit to Labour's campaign to win over voters in the capital.
The hon. Gentleman has just implied that Mr. Terry Ashton was totally wrong and that the document is of no benefit whatever to Labour's campaign. All those hon. Members


listed at the back, who gave evidence to the London Policy Forum, have now heard from the hon. Gentleman that they laboured totally in vain.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow mentioned transport. My constituency now has the benefit of new rolling stock on the Great Western line from Ealing Broadway into Paddington. The Paddington to Heathrow extension is being constructed; and £750 million is being spent on modernising the Central line. It would be wrong to depict transport in London as being represented by the Northern line, which we debated earlier.
As for housing, a subject in which the hon. Member for Greenwich and I have a shared interest, we published figures a few days ago showing that acceptances for homelessness in London in the past year were 13 per cent. fewer than in 1992—the seventh successive quarter in which the numbers have fallen by comparison with the previous 12 months. The figures are now at their lowest for six years, and there has been a big reduction in the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation too. Only 7 per cent. of all households are in temporary accommodation, down from 10 per cent. in December 1992.
The Opposition spokesman knows perfectly well that there has been a decline of about two thirds in the number of those sleeping rough in cardboard boxes in the centre of London.
To bring back the GLC would be a step backwards: back to swarms of bureaucrats in county hall checking and double-guessing what might happen elsewhere in the capital; back to the inefficiency, muddle, profligacy and waste that typified the GLC; and back to high local taxation to pay for it all. That is not our way; we are forward looking, creative and low taxing.
The crucial fact, which no Opposition Member mentioned, was that London has strong local authorities: the boroughs. That is the key difference between London and the other major capitals of Europe. Our form of strong, unitary local government is not replicated in other capitals. I see no point in bringing back an over-arching structure, as proposed by the Opposition.
It is much better to find out what London needs, the approach adopted in some of our initiatives, none of which was mentioned by Opposition Members this morning. They did not mention the development corporations, or city challenge, or London pride, or any of the other things that we are doing in London.
Last November we published "London: Making the Best Better", a document that was unashamedly positive about London, unlike Opposition Members this morning. It covers many aspects of London, ranging from the economy to visitors and shopping. It lists the achievements of local government, the private and voluntary sectors, and the Government. The document has been widely distributed and has been extremely successful. It was also an exercise in listening. It contained a questionnaire inviting those who live and work in London, and visitors to it, to tell us what they appreciate and to make suggestions for possible improvements.
We were extremely encouraged by the response—10,800 replies by the middle of February. We shall publish a digest of those responses later this month; the House will forgive me if I avoid giving away any secrets today. It was noticeable how much Londoners like this city and how

proud they are of it. Of course they have suggestions on how to improve it, but they also see a great deal to be proud of. In the autumn we announced city pride for London, Manchester and Birmingham, an initiative to produce a prospectus setting out a vision for the future of the capital and the practical steps needed to bring that about.
We have set up a partnership involving local authorities, the ALA, the private sector, and voluntary sector bodies, and they are on course to produce the prospectus by the end of the year.
We are also on the verge of another exciting development for London, creating a single Government office for London by bringing together officials from my Department, the DTI, the Department of Transport and the Department of Employment in a single office with a single senior regional director. The new office will provide a single point of entry to the government of London and will ensure that Departments' programmes are co-ordinated—a much more user-friendly service.
City challenge in London has utterly transformed attitudes in some of the capitals most intractably deprived areas. In Deptford, for instance, much has already been achieved. The initiative was greeted with scepticism, but it is now recognised as having broken the mould and changed how we all think about urban regeneration. It has enabled some players to see at first hand the power of competition to maximise resources for the good of those in need. It has created partnerships where there had been a tradition of non-co-operation between sectors. It has brought together participants whose paths otherwise rarely crossed: bankers, industrialists, church leaders, the police, councillors, tenants, educators, voluntary organisations and private individuals.
As a targeted, measured and time-limited policy, it has asked all partners to be strategic in their approach and to deliver hard, measurable outputs within a fixed term. There is no bottomless pit of funding; it is a five-year programme with £7.5 million of city challenge money per year. The rest is up to the partners to secure, underpin and deliver. That contrasts with the vague, rather uncosted proposals about which we heard this evening.
The results of city challenge are already impressive by any standards. Seven of the 13 urban priority authorities in London were successful in their bids, working in partnership with local businesses and local people.
Over the five-year programmes, my Department's investment of some £260 million in the targeted areas will attract more than £450 million from other Government programmes and £800 million from the private sector. As a result, we will preserve 12,000 jobs that might otherwise have been at risk and open up 20,000 new job opportunities. We shall reclaim more than 450 acres of valuable inner city land currently lying derelict or contaminated. We shall improve or build 13,300 homes, help to start 2,600 new business and bring into use 500,000 sq ft of business and commercial floor space.
City challenge has already created a new impetus to urban regeneration. It has brought together all the stakeholders in urban regeneration to form new partnerships and to work towards achieving visions for key deprived neighbourhoods. The areas include Park Royal in Harlesden, a major industrial subcentre in west London; Stratford in Newham, already benefiting from enhanced transport facilities and likely to become a keen regenerative force; Bethnal Green in Tower Hamlets,


which has the largest growing young population in the country; and four other city challenge areas: Dalston, Deptford, Brixton and north Kensington.
That is not the only example of partnership in London. In east London we have the East London partnership, a highly dynamic private-public sector organisation based in Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Newham. It has a key role in Stratford city challenge and continues to contribute to strategic thinking in the pivotal area right at the head of the east Thames corridor.
On the other side of London there is the West London Leadership and the associated Park Royal partnership—powerful sponsors of revitalisation in that key area. Park Royal, part of which is in my constituency, and once a highly prosperous industrial enclave ensconced on the right side of London, has seen decline, but its potential, aided by city challenge, is enormous. The partnership is a key agent in realising that potential to the full.
In Greenwich, the Waterfront Development partnership has developed a strategy for the future of 7.5 miles of Thames waterside, linking major sites of the Greenwich peninsula, the historic town centre, Woolwich Arsenal and Thamesmead.
The newest area-based partnership was launched only last week. On 9 March, my right hon. Friend attended a gathering of 200 people at Haringey Technopark to launch the Lea Valley partnership involving six boroughs—Enfield, Haringey, Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Newham—with members from all other key sectors. It covers one of London's oldest industrial areas, tracing a corridor reaching from the M25 to the terminus.
The partnership has the huge task of promoting the Lea valley and east London—an area with the capacity to develop into London's truly modern industrial zone reclaimed, opened up, greener and fully geared to the technical and commercial trends of the next century. It was clear that all the partners present were committed to that vital task.
City challenge, the area-based London partnerships, and the extended objective 2 partnerships for the Lea valley and east London do not end the story. There are other moves afoot in south and outer west London. There are many partners in London. The 33 boroughs, the nine TECs, the four task forces, English Partnerships, local business groups, the voluntary sector and the Faith communities are participants in many groupings. The networking of those groups is one of the most creative aspects of partnership development.
We have had a substantial debate on transport, so I do not plan to go over that ground again, but I believe that the flexible approach that we have adopted in targeting those parts of London that need help, bringing together the existing players—the private sector, local authorities, the Government and the voluntary sector—is much better than the recreation of a body which I have to say was unloved by Londoners, for which I do not believe there is any substantial demand.
Londoners had a choice in the 1983 general election. We fought on a manifesto stating that we would abolish the GLC. We had one of the best results ever in London. It was a vote winner on the doorstep in 1983. Successful packages will be driven by local as well as national policy objectives—package bids from local authorities focusing on a balanced approach to reducing congestion, for example, and in improving public transport.
Partnership is a powerful idea whose time has come. The people of London know what they want. They do not want a son of GLC. They want their great city to remain powerful, prosperous, attractive, convenient to live and work in and a joy to visit. They do not want top-heavy bureaucracy pretending, at vast expense, to provide those things. They want to see things happen; they live here. That is exactly what partnership is about. That is what Conservative borough-led local government is all about.

Orders of the Day — South-east Turkey

Mr. John Austin-Walker: I asked for this debate because of my concern and that of many Opposition Members about the current political situation in Turkey and the treatment of the Kurdish minority there by the Government forces.
The Kurds are a people who, since 1926, in the words of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Ennals, have been a people of minority in five different sovereign nations, most of which have scant regard for human rights. The human rights record of Syria, Iran and Iraq is well known and publicised, but far less is said about the human rights record of the Government of Turkey. Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe and NATO. One may read something into the fact that less criticism is made of a country that is an ally of the United Kingdom than those that are perceived to be its enemies.
The situation of the Kurds in other parts of the area has been well documented and seen on our television screens, particularly since the run-up to the Gulf war, and subsequently. The Prime Minister expressed concern about the persecution of the Kurds in Iraq by the brutal oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein. At the time of the Gulf war, the Prime Minister called for safe havens for the Kurds in that country, yet the Government appear to have been relatively silent when similar policies of genocide against the Kurds have been practised by the Government of Tansu Ciller.
I visited north-west Kurdistan and south-east Turkey last October with Lord Avebury, on behalf of the parliamentary human rights group. We visited a number of villages, talked to the local population and interviewed the regional governor. I commend the bravery of the witnesses who gave evidence to us. That evidence is well documented in the publication that has been produced by the parliamentary human rights group. The evidence that Lord Avebury and I collected adds to that which has already been published by Helsinki Watch and Amnesty International, which has been supported by resolutions from the Inter-Parliamentary Union and confirmed by the visit of the representative of His Eminence Cardinal Basil Hume and several members of the other place.
When I visited south-east Turkey last October, it was one month after the assassination of Mehmet Sincar, the democratic Member of Parliament for Mardin, who was assassinated along with the chairman of the Democracy party for the Batman region. Shortly after that assassination and just prior to our visit, a bomb attack was made on Mr. Sincar's father's house, when Leyla Zana, another Democracy party Member of Parliament, was visiting to offer her condolences. Leyla Zana accompanied the human rights delegation on its recent visit. She is now under arrest by the Turkish Government for having used constitutional means to express Kurdish aspirations.
On our visit last October, we saw brutal evidence of the destruction and depopulation of villages. I understand that, according to the current estimate, some 900 villages have been destroyed by the Turkish authorities since 1993. The policy of the Turkish Government, in terms of their attacks on the villages, has been well documented, both in our report and by Amnesty International.
Let me read the evidence that was given to us by one of the witnesses. Hurshit Diri, a 54-year-old farmer in the village of Kele, near Yuksekova, told us:
On October 11 at about 1.30 pm we heard firing and saw a large column of armoured vehicles … entering the village. The troops first searched all the houses, then the mountains outside. The soldiers opened fire on the village, and we believed it was because we had refused to join the village guards. Four people were injured"—
and, indeed, a young child was killed. The farmer went on to tell us:
The army gave us until Thursday to join the military guards, or we would be bombarded. We didn't join and the village was attacked, killing two people.
Another witness said to us, in Karabag village:
On October 11 the military called all residents to the station and told them they had to accept weapons and fight the PKK, or they would be evicted and their houses burned. Tanks are waiting outside the village now. Last night they opened fire and killed some sheep. Yesterday also they went to Dadaba, a next door village, and arrested some residents who refused to join the village guards".
That is typical of the action of the Turkish authorities. As I have said, I understand that, to date, some 900 villages have been depopulated or destroyed.
On our visit, we saw evidence that those who have become victims of the Turkish authorities had been refused treatment in hospitals and that doctors had been put under pressure not to treat them. We saw evidence that attacks had been made on the freedom of lawyers and, indeed, that lawyers who had defended those accused of political crimes had been arrested. We saw evidence of mass murder and other killings; we received evidence of extra-judicial executions. We certainly saw evidence of attacks on journalists, and on the newspaper Ozgur Gundem.
As hon. Members may know, since my return the Turkish authorities have closed down that newspaper—on international human rights day, 10 December 1993, when its front page highlighted the violation of human rights in Turkey. Several of the journalists working for the paper have been murdered; others have been arrested and tortured, and the lawyers defending them have been intimidated and arrested.
The pretext for the arrests was that the lawyers were acting as couriers for the Workers party of Kurdistan; the reality is that lawyers defending political prisoners were targeted by the Turkish authorities. Those arrests of lawyers in Turkey violate the basic principle that lawyers are entitled to defend their clients without interference from the state.
Earlier, I mentioned that a number of Democracy party Members of Parliament had been arrested. A few weeks ago, in answer to a parliamentary question, the Minister suggested that the Kurdish people of Turkey were entitled to pursue their Kurdish aspirations, but must do so through constitutional means. Eight Members of the Turkish Parliament who have been pursuing their aspirations through democratic and constitutional means now find themselves under arrest. Yesterday, I understand, the Turkish state prosecutor filed a case with the state security court, under article 125 of the Turkish penal code, which carries a maximum death penalty. What crime have those people committed? They have asserted the rights of the Kurdish people, as a people.
Turkey is a member of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and an adherent to the declaration of Copenhagen. My understanding is that that declaration asserts the rights of minorities


freely to express, preserve and develop their ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious identity and to maintain and develop their culture in all aspects, free of any attempts at assimilation against their will.
Turkey is clearly in breach of its commitments under the Copenhagen declaration of the CSCE. There is a responsibility on all the other participating states to protect those rights and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will do that with force within the CSCE.
The Kurds who have been denied statehood are a distinctive people with their own history, language and culture. The Kurds in Turkey played a significant role in the establishment of the Turkish Republic in exchange for promised equal rights and local self rule. Once the republic was founded, their language, their culture and their political organisations were banned. We have seen a regime of oppression on the part of the Turkish Government that has been matched only by the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in his brutal oppression of the Kurdish minority there.
I believe that this country has specific responsibilities to take some action. Apart from the fact that we had some responsibility for the delineation of the boundaries in that area at the beginning of the century, Germany, the United States and Britain are supplying Turkey with the military means to wage the conflict against the Kurdish people.
Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe. Presumably, it is therefore bound by the human rights conventions of the Council of Europe. As I said earlier, it is also a member of the CSCE. I believe that this country has a responsibility to ensure that Turkey fulfils its rights under the Geneva conventions. Not only does Turkey have a responsibility to carry out its duties under the Geneva conventions, but there is a responsibility on all the high contracting parties to the Geneva conventions to "ensure respect" for their terms. I believe that that places a responsibility on Her Majesty's Government to ensure that Turkey adheres to the conventions. I urge the Minister to argue with his colleagues in the Council of Europe to submit an inter-state application against Turkey under article 24 of the European convention on human rights.
The problem is inherent in the Turkish constitution. The constitution effectively denies the rights of any minority. A person who asserts the rights of a minority in Turkey is in contradiction of the constitution. Article 125 of the penal code states that the penalty for even arguing for independence, devolution or a degree of self-government for the Kurdish people is death. As I said earlier, eight democratically elected members of the Turkish Parliament, elected through constitutional means to carry out Kurdish aspirations, find themselves facing the prospect of the death penalty.
Lest what I say sounds extreme, I shall quote the chief prosecutor of the republic. In one of his statements in a case against the Democracy party, the chief prosecutor's assessment is:
The Democracy party claims that there is a distinct Kurdish nation and a Kurdish question in Turkey. It demands a political solution which can be found in a democratic context in which Kurdish identity is recognised with all its implications, and freedom of thought and organisation are recognised.
He goes on to say:
This question is determined by the Lucerne agreement. There is a single nation in Turkey, the Turkish nation. Our citizens with Kurdish origin constitute the national unity by fusing with other ethnic groups and this unity forms the Turkish nation. By calls for

a solution implying that there is a distinct nation, people or minority is aimed at dividing the nation. Only Greeks, Armenians, Jews and Bulgarians are minorities in Turkey.
The Turks' insistence that the Kurds do not exist is enshrined in the Turkish constitution, which is not only undemocratic but contravenes the articles on human rights, to which Turkey is an adherent.
The killing, the destruction of villages and the depopulation go on unabated. The abuse of human rights in Turkey is no different from that in Iran or Iraq. If the Government can call for safe havens and for sanctions against Iraq for its brutal oppression and murder of the Kurdish people, why are they not doing the same when those actions are carried out by the Government of Turkey?

Ms Joyce Quin: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) has had the opportunity to raise this matter. I wish that he had been even more fortunate in the ballot and had been able to raise the matter at a time when it would have attracted wider attention. The issue is important and it increasingly concerns British people.
My hon. Friend's concern and his knowledge of the matter is well known. He is well briefed, particularly following his visit to the area last year with the noble Lord Avebury, as a result of which a report was written that has been influential in informing people in Westminster and beyond of the situation in south-east Turkey. A good debate was held in the other place last November, in which many took part.
I hope that the Minister will respond to some of the specific points that my hon. Friend made. The situation of the Kurds in Iraq enjoyed considerable publicity and became the focus of widespread international concern, but that of the Kurdish minority in Turkey has been less well reported, although the extent of repression is alarming.
Although I have nothing like the experience of my hon. Friend, in the past two months I have met representatives of the Kurdish minority in Turkey, who, I understand, held discussions with Foreign Office officials. As a result of what I heard, I felt that, if only half of what I had been told were true, it was still enough to make me deeply alarmed about what was happening and the repression that seems to have taken place. A huge number of innocent people certainly seem to have been caught up in a drastic situation.
There have been reports of terrorist activities perpetrated by the PKK, which were referred to in the debate in the other place. We must remember that the vast majority of the Kurdish population in Turkey are entirely innocent of any acts of violence, yet they are, on a great scale, the victims of state violence.
Labour strongly believes that if Turkey is to claim to be part of the democratic group of nations and a civilised country, it must give proper respect to minority rights. A range of policies must be introduced, such as allowing the Kurdish minority proper freedom of expression and freedom to organise and express their views in the country. Such forms of expression seem to be denied at the moment, as evidenced by the lack of a free press and free media in general. That form of repression needs to be considered alongside the instances of extreme brutality to which my hon. Friend referred when he mentioned the destruction of


hundreds of villages and the expulsion of villagers from their homes. Many of the villagers were abandoned in freezing conditions, with no shelter.
The accounts of torture detailed in the report by Amnesty International make very frightening reading. They mention brutality against thousands of people and many instances of arrest and torture. How does the Minister respond to the specific recommendations in the report, with which I am sure that he is familiar? If he agrees with them, how does he propose to pursue them with his counterparts in international organisations, such as the European Union, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and the United Nations?
There have been reports in several newspapers about the Government's role and their attitude towards the Turkish Government. Indeed, the Government seem to be portrayed as one of Turkey's friends within the European Union, together with the German Government. To what extent does the Minister accept the reports, especially that which appeared in the Financial Times in February, as accurate portrayals of Government policy? It would be interesting if he were able to elucidate the Government's view.
We believe that Turkey cannot make any progress towards full membership of the European Union unless there is a complete sea change in its attitude to human rights. The plight of the Kurds will be the real test of the Turkish Government's willingness to adopt more civilised behaviour and respect for human rights.
In the past, Turkey's geographical position has given it a pivotal role, especially in the cold war era when it was regarded as an important part of NATO. It is less pivotal these days, although it is still important strategically for access to the middle east and the Balkans. Nevertheless, even though we need friends in strategic positions, we cannot have friends who do not behave in a civilised manner or respect human rights. There will be even more widespread alarm for the Kurds in Turkey unless Turkey mends its ways very soon and very dramatically.
For those reasons, and in view of all the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, I hope that the Minister will respond with care to the debate.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): There is no doubt that this is a serious issue, and I make no criticism of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) for raising it at just before 2 am. I am bound to say that it is a very odd procedure whereby such important issues are discussed at this time, but the hon. Gentleman is making use of the facilities available to him and that is a perfectly right thing to do.
This is also a perfectly sensible matter to debate. I shall not enter into a debate of the ordinary type, because I have learnt from long experience that those who try to do so at 2.13 am are asking for trouble. I shall not, therefore, respond to all the questions asked by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin)—I mean no discourtesy to them, but I have a feeling that that would not be wise thing to do. I have a text that I propose to read.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Woolwich on raising this issue. It is a difficult matter for the Turkish Government, and one that is followed with considerable interest and some concern in the United Kingdom and other western countries. The late President of Turkey was arguably right to describe it as going beyond the simple dimensions of terrorism and as perhaps the most significant problem in the history of the republic. It is good that this problem is now being increasingly and openly discussed in Turkey.
About half of Turkey's 12 million Kurds live in the south-east. That is one of the poorer areas of the country. Since 1984, the Marxist-Leninist Kurdistan Workers party—the PKK—has been fighting a terrorist campaign for an independent, autonomous Kurdistan, and there is a state of emergency. The escalating conflict between the PKK and the Turkish security forces has seen thousands of deaths since the troubles began. PKK tactics include attacks on Turkish military and Government installations, ambushes of security patrols, brutal attacks on villages believed to be pro-Government and the murder of teachers and electoral officials in the area.
As hon. Members will know, the PKK has also attacked tourist targets in western and south-western Turkey, seeking to undermine the income going into that country, which the people of the south-east need as much as anybody in terms of investment. In addition, it has kidnapped foreign tourists in south-eastern Turkey, and PKK supporters have carried out fire-bombings of Turkish properties in London and other European cities.
There are, in addition, in the south-east in particular, unexplained killings of many civilians, including local politicians and journalists, and detainees have been tortured in police cells. That is why there is widespread international concern about the Kurdish problem in Turkey.
It is, of course, for the Turkish Government to decide how to resolve their problems in the south-east. We unreservedly condemn terrorism. We understand and sympathise with the difficulties faced by the Turkish Government in the south-east. We support their efforts to remove the PKK terrorist threat. But they must do so in conformity with the norms of governmental behaviour, which they have accepted in subscribing to various international conventions. The clear evidence of human rights abuses by both sides is cause for justifiable concern by the international community. A Government must, above all, act with full respect for human rights, even in facing an opponent that shows no such respect.

Mr. Austin-Walker: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: I am afraid not.
It is important that all societies fully respect human rights. Turkey has signed the European convention on human rights. We have urged Turkey to ratify the two main United Nations covenants—the international covenant on civil and political rights and the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights.
Foreign Office Ministers and senior officials continue to stress these points when they meet their Turkish colleagues. Other western countries do the same. In Ankara, at the end of January, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear to the Turkish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister that terrorism has to be tackled within the rule of law and with full respect for


human rights. Only last week, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made the same point, in London, to the Turkish Minister for human rights.
Britain and other European countries have also pressed for remedial action in international forums. At the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe human dimension implementation review meeting in Warsaw last September, the Turkish Government were criticised for the actions of their security forces against civilians in the south-east, their failure to investigate properly the murders of pro-Kurdish activists, including journalists and politicians, restrictions on the freedom of speech and systematic torture. The United Kingdom, on behalf of the European Community, delivered the statement on freedom of expression and free media. We cited Turkey as one of the participating states whose performance in that respect gave cause for concern. Our statement referred to the harassment of journalists, the murder of 16 journalists since February 1992 and the banning of journals and publications.
Her Majesty's Government are aware that, on several occasions, the International Committee of the Red Cross has requested access to Turkish prisons, in co-operation with the Turkish authorities. Regrettably, the Turkish response has so far been a negative one. Following the recent statement about that matter by the European Union at the human rights conference in Geneva, I urge the Turkish Government to engage in talks with the ICRC about ICRC access to prisons in Turkey.
The Turkish Government have made efforts to improve matters. We recognise that a new law passed over a year ago improves human rights provisions under domestic law. But the task remains to ensure that Turkish police abide by that code and that the fight against terrorism is conducted within the framework of proper respect for domestic and international human rights obligations. Moreover, officials who commit abuses must be, and be seen to be, brought to book.
The United Kingdom, along with our European partners, is concerned about the lifting of the parliamentary immunity of deputies from the pro-Kurdish Democracy party earlier this month. Our ambassador in Ankara made our concerns plain to the Turkish Government, stressing that such action was very damaging for Turkey's international image. Other European ambassadors in Ankara have done the same. We await the decision of the constitutional court on the appeal by the deputies before considering further action with the Turkish Government.
The debate has underlined the difficulty of any moderate Kurdish view being expressed in Turkey. That is because, under the existing constitution, such expression is considered to be advancing separatist opinion and as such, even if non-violent, is a criminal offence. We believe strongly that the people of Turkey, including elected representatives, should be able to give non-violent expression to their beliefs even when they do not agree—as clearly they will not—with some members of the Turkish Government. That is the meaning of democracy.
We have seen promises from the Turkish Government on reforms aimed at greater democracy. They have undertaken to reform the constitution and certain terms that restrict freedom of expression. I believe that the House would urge the Turkish Government to make early progress to achieve all that, because if the moderate Kurdish view is allowed to be expressed peaceably in Turkey, the terrorists of the PKK will be isolated, and that is what will protect the civilians more than anything else.
I have listened carefully to the various concerns expressed during this timely debate. Once again, the hon. Member for Woolwich has given us the opportunity to discuss the matter. The debate will also serve to remind the Turkish authorities of the entirely legitimate concerns in the United Kingdom and other western countries about human rights in Turkey. It is appalling that large numbers of innocent civilians find themselves caught up in the conflict—often threatened by the PKK on one side and by the actions of the security forces on the other.
As I have said, and as we in the United Kingdom well know, dealing with ruthless terrorists is far from easy. But police and security forces engaged in the conflict must not sink to the level of their opponents. They must stand above them, and they must abide by the international standards of human rights.
We must also make it clear that moderate Kurdish views should be allowed to find expression within Turkey. That would strengthen the hand of the Turkish Government in dealing with ruthless terrorists. A functioning democracy cuts the ground from under them.
We continue to hope that the problem in south-east Turkey will be solved through peaceful and democratic means. That will bring lasting peace to the region, help to deliver the region's economic prosperity and encourage the Kurdish people of the south-east to feel that they are fully a part of a democratic Turkish state.

Orders of the Day — Local Government

Mr. David Shaw: Local government in this country is operating on a scale probably never envisaged when it first took on its present structure, and when the legislation that determined that structure was brought into being. It now costs about £80 billion in capital and revenue terms each year. That is an enormous sum, and the council tax that we all pay covers only about 10 per cent. of that £80 billion. The Government and business pay 90 per cent. of it.
If we include teachers, there are about 2 million employees of local councils throughout the United Kingdom—that is, nearly 50 per cent. of all workers in the public sector. That is a vast number of employees, and the total cost is considerable. It is therefore important that we should always try to raise standards in local authorities, as we should try to do everywhere in the public sector. It is important that value for money be set as an objective, and strong efforts be made to achieve it. We must always strive for the utmost efficiency, the highest levels of effectiveness and the highest attainable quality of service from our local authorities.
Sadly, that is not always the case. In recent years we have seen much abuse involving the way in which local authorities are run. The fact has recently been published that the debt of many Labour councils now exceeds that of many third world countries, and the 13 Labour councils with the largest debts all have debts of more than £500 million.
Manchester tops the list with a debt of £1,326 million. Then there is Birmingham, with a debt of £1,233 million, Islington, with £946 million, Lambeth, with £878 million, Southwark, with £856 million, Liverpool, with £765 million, Hackney, with £757 million, Camden, with £743 million, Leeds, with £737 million, Sheffield, with £730 million, Haringey, with £549 million, and Newham, with £547 million. Lewisham, 13th in the list, has a debt of £506 million.
Many people will wonder who is to repay this debt. Many people will also wonder whether they will be told the truth in the coming council elections. Will they really know who they are voting for? Are these figures widely available? Are they understood by the electorate? Does the electorate even know about them? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear in mind that the figures ought to be publicised in the national interest so that taxpayers and council tax payers throughout the country can see which councils have the largest debt and be made aware of the figures that I have mentioned.
The cost of servicing the debt ought to be recognised and understood more widely. Not only are there Labour councils in the top 13 councils for debt but also those top 13 Labour councils must raise some £600 million a year in taxation just to pay the interest charges on the debt. It is a phenomenal amount of money, equivalent to nearly 10 per cent. of the total council tax raised.
What emerges from all this is that Conservative councils have a much better record. In many cases, they are role models for the rest to follow. In my own constituency we had a Conservative council for many years, and although at present a Lib-Lab pact rules the council, it is worth looking at what a number of years of Conservative rule have brought to Dover. Dover has a debt of only £34

million after many years of Conservative control. It manages, with just 500 employees, to provide an excellent service to its residents. It has also had a report just published by the audit service that is one of the best that I have ever seen.
The housing department in Dover—a particular interest of mine and one that I shall return to later—earned the following accolade from the auditor:
My review of the council's housing strategy was based on a national study by the Audit Commission which identified a number of good practices against which authorities could be compared. We found that the council in Dover is performing well in many respects and has adopted a variety of methods for addressing housing needs.
The report went on to say:
The process for allocating council houses via the waiting list works well.
The housing department received a well-earned credit from the audit service. Judging from the correspondence that I have about housing matters in Dover, it does very well indeed.
The community charge benefit system and the housing benefit system operated by the finance department in Dover also earned plus points in the audit report, which said:
Our review showed that the council had already introduced many of the elements of good practice identified by the Audit Commission.
The report went on to say that
the council's workload has increased by some 9 per cent. in the three years to 1992–93, while at the same time the number of staff employed in the benefits section has decreased. As a result, the workload per person is above the Kent average and the cost of the council's service compares favourably with other Kent authorities.
By definition, it must compare favourably with that of other authorities in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Dover's senior officers have been on performance-related pay, something that the Government have encouraged, for some six years. The staff of Dover district council have been on performance-related pay for some three years. They are performing and delivering a better service for my constituents. Dover district council is a well-run Conservative council.
Another council that earns the accolade of being a well-run Conservative council is Redbridge. I was impressed by the speed with which Redbridge council noted that I had a debate today on local government and immediately sent me a fax with some statistics about how efficient it is. There is no doubt that Redbridge council must come high on the list of successful Conservative councils. I was impressed with the facts and the details that it sent me.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has kindly come along to reply to the debate, will be delighted by what he, I hope, saw in the Evening Standard last night—or should I say tonight? Brent council, formerly under Labour control, has announced its council tax for the next year. It has announced that for the fourth year in a row it will reduce its council tax. That is what Conservative councils mean—four years of reducing the council tax below the level set by Labour. That is a major achievement and a great improvement.
We compare that news with the sad news yesterday from Islington council. It is £878 million in debt and the child care division of its social services department has collapsed. In the newspaper tonight we discovered that there had been 14 years of failure and neglect in the child care division of the social services department. We also discovered that the council attempted to hide the report that


would have disclosed the problem. The council is £878 million in debt and it still cannot finance, structure and make work a proper social services department.
Lewisham council is of particular interest in Dover at present because the leader of the council was brought down to Dover by the Labour group to teach Dover Labour party how to run a council. Lewisham council is not a good example, and we in Dover certainly do not want to have what goes on in Lewisham down in Dover. I understand that Lewisham council attempted to ban Christmas. It did not consult the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury. It just decided that a Christmas party was the wrong sort of party because it identified with religion, so it changed the name to a winter party. Lewisham council has also failed to collect £25 million in rent, rate and council tax arrears. That is an appalling state of affairs. We in Dover certainly do not want Lewisham to teach us anything.
In Tameside the position is even worse. The council has set up a company to look after the elderly. The company did not so much look after the elderly as look after Labour party supporters. A number of shares in that company are apparently owned by the local Labour party through the nominee of its chairman. That is an appalling state of affairs and a scandal in which much money has been lost. The BBC has carried out an in-depth investigation and discovered much wrongdoing. Local newspapers have written articles of many column inches identifying corruption, fraud and wasteful expenditure.
Another council also identifies badly from Labour's point of view. ft is Monklands council, where the Leader of the Opposition has his base. It has a debt of more than £130 million. It has more than 1,400 employees. It is one of the most inefficient, nepotistic and corrupt councils in the country. It has the sixth highest council tax in Scotland. The audit report by its auditor is completely the opposite to the one I have just read out about Dover. The Monklands audit report, just released, announces that the council is operating at the limits of its financial capacity. The evidence of wrongdoing in Monklands does not come from Conservative politicians—apart from the fact that I have got hold of many papers and have started to bring Monklands council into the public arena.

Mr. Michael Connarty: As someone who was born in Monklands and has a record in local government, I understand the audit reports very well. Would the hon. Gentleman like to alter his statement in the light of the fact that the auditor said that Monklands council had not been at all compromised in its report? No qualification was entered by the auditor in this year's, or any other year's, audit report.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman's comments on the audit report that has been issued may change as he listens to what I have to say. He may change his view when he hears about the police who are currently investigating something that happened only a week after the audit report was concluded. He may change his view when he hears about some of the fraud and fiddles that I shall identify in the remainder of my speech.
I want to give some of the evidence and quote Catherine Miller, the branch secretary of the Holehills and Raywards branch of the Labour party. In 1992 she said:
This branch … unreservedly condemns the nature of Cllr Brooks's highly personalised and derogatory statements, believing these are grossly insulting to the four councillors and deliberately designed to divert attention away from the main

issues that have been raised.
The four councillors to whom she referred are four Labour councillors who have attempted to identify and expose the corruption and wrongdoing. Councillor Brooks is the Labour leader of the council that the Leader of the Opposition has supported for a position on a local health board at a salary of £5,000 a year. Fortunately, the Government had the good sense not to appoint Councillor Brooks.
An anonymous spokesman for the Plains and Caldercruix branch of the Labour party wrote to the local newspaper, saying:
In addition to other branches within the local Labour Party, Plains and Caldercruix also calls for a full, detailed investigation by the National Executive into the way in which the 'inner circle' of the Labour Group run the affairs of this local authority.
Such entrenchment of power in so few hands is bad for local democracy. It also called upon the national executive of the Labour party to investigate fully the present dictatorial set up of council committees and subcommittees. A democratisation process is called for so that the council fully represents the entire electorate. There are real worries in the local Labour party in Monklands about the democracy, or lack of it, that exists there.
Mr. P. Drummond, the branch secretary of Gartlea branch of the Labour party, wrote that
Councillor Brady"—
a Labour rebel councilor—
as far as we are concerned can hold his head up. He has no relatives employed by the council, has never sought to get friends into such posts, does not use crude language in public pronouncements, is a relatively low claimant of expenses and an infrequent attender at available buffets and junkets.
It seems that that is a model by which some people in the Labour party locally measure the other people in the Labour party, and many people in the Labour party do not fit that model.
James Turner, branch secretary of the Rochsoles and Glenmavis branch in Airdrie, wrote:
If left as it is, this situation will only deteriorate. The subject of 'Democracy à la Monklands' is surely questionable at best: divisions in the Labour Party here grow even wider.
Labour councillors are also concerned. Councillor Murphy, a regional councillor for Coatbridge, North and Glenboig, and a shop steward in the National Union of Public Employees, stated:
I have got good proof about jobs not being advertised … employees who are members of the Labour Party have been given temporary promotion and the jobs 'get lost in the system."'
Councillor Morgan, a Labour councillor, said:
I know of cases where candidates have been selected for jobs without even the bare minimum qualifications required."
That was reported in The Herald of Glasgow on 21 May 1993.
The Labour party was so worried that it was forced to hold an inquiry into the way in which the council was operated. Unfortunately, that inquiry has ended up as a cover-up. The Leader of the Opposition has never answered questions about it, even though it led to the suspension of his constituency Labour party. Nevertheless, the Scottish Labour party had to admit in its report:
Involvement of Councillors in the appointment procedures … was a practice which has left the Labour Group open to criticism.
That is fairly mild language, but it is fairly serious when one realises what has gone on in that council.
Public records are also now established about the wrongdoing. A recent ombudsman's report recorded maladministration. I give as an example the ombudsman's report in August 1993, on the son of Councillor Gilson


—Councillor Gilson being a leading Monklands councilor—being allowed to buy his council house when neighbours in similar houses were not allowed to buy theirs. The ombudsman said:
My investigation of how this application was processed has been hampered because the authority have been unable to provide my investigating officer with information which might have revealed the reasons for the apparent inconsistency.
Earlier we heard about Islington council trying to keep secret a report on child care. Now we find that Monklands council managed to keep secret the way in which Councillor Gilson's son bought his council house for himself whereas other residents could not buy theirs.
The decision-making process on Monklands council is determined by who controls the local Labour party. In Monklands, control rests firmly with the small group known as the local Labour mafia. In Monklands, East, the Leader of the Opposition's constituency, the Labour party is bankrupt and in debt to the tune of £2,500. It is devoid of active members. Only about 100 people are active in the local Labour party.

Mr. Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have put up with this drivel for so long. Has this peroration on some local Labour party branch or constituency any relevance to the debate that the hon. Member is supposed to be speaking to?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The hon. Member chose local government as a subject and what he is saying is clearly connected with local government.

Mr. Shaw: I am trying to show the way in which it is possible to control a local council with only 100 people in the local Labour party.

Mr. Connarty: I respect the Deputy Speaker's position, but I wonder whether a debate about a constituency Labour party which has absolutely no relevance to local government law in Scotland has any relevance.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I shall listen further.

Mr. Shaw: The local Labour party has but 100 people effectively working in it.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: Tell us about the power.

Mr. Shaw: The power is controlled, as I was coming on to say, by a small trade union vote, which largely consists of council employees active in the trade unions. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Shaw: Those council employees attend the local party meetings, where they elect into power people who then become councillors.

Mr. Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Shaw: I have just used the word "councillors".

Mr. Connarty: I think it is relevant, because I have been on a course on that subject, Madam Deputy Speaker, that a district Labour party which is responsible for controlling any policy matter relating to a district council

in Scotland does not consist of members of a constituency Labour party. The hon. Gentleman is speaking about a constituency Labour party and who attended a constituency Labour party general committee. It has been ruled already in law that it is not a relevant matter on a district council. He was speaking about local government.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for an intervention rather than a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Shaw: I am only too happy for the hon. Gentleman either to intervene in my speech or, if he so wishes, to make his own speech afterwards. If he wants to attempt to alter or amend anything that I have said, I am sure that the House and the world will be very grateful. If he would have a word with the leader of his party and ask him to make a statement to the press correcting anything that I have said about Monklands, I am sure that the press and the world would be grateful if the Leader of the Opposition were to make a statement.

Mr. McMaster: Has not the Leader of the Opposition made it clear that the Secretary of State for Scotland has powers to investigate Monklands district council? To date, the Secretary of State has chosen not to use those powers.

Mr. Shaw: The Secretary of State for Scotland has challenged the Leader of the Opposition to produce the internal Labour documents for the inquiry that I have just mentioned. The fact is that John Smith will not produce the papers.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that in this House we do not refer to hon. Members by name.

Mr. Shaw: I apologise, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I meant to say that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) had not produced the background papers for the Labour party report.

Mr. McMaster: Has not the Minister with responsibility for Scottish local government, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), appeared on BBC television's excellent "Scottish Lobby" programme and said that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East has nothing to answer?

Mr. Shaw: I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Minister. I have heard no suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition has nothing to answer. I have frequently heard my hon. Friend say that he believes that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East should stop being silent and behaving like a Trappist monk, and that he should make a statement about what is going on in his own constituency. I have heard that said at the Dispatch Box and more widely.
The Monklands, East Labour party is in a very bad state. It is controlled by no more than about 100 people. There is a heavy trade union vote.

Mr. Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is supposed to be talking about local government. In fact, he is talking about Monklands, East constituency Labour party. It is clearly established that constituency Labour parties, under the local government law of Scotland, of which I have some knowledge, have nothing to do with district Labour parties or district councils.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must understand that that is a matter on which he may wish to intervene. It is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Shaw: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As I have tried to say on a number of occasions—I wish to repeat the point—I am concerned about how the councillors become councillors. How do they remain as councillors? How do they get access to the council gravy train? The fact is that they get access to the council gravy train in Monklands by getting control of the local Labour party. They get control of the local Labour party because it is bankrupt and in debt to the tune of £2,500, and it has only about 100 members. As a result, it is quite easy to get control of a council with a turnover of £80 million simply by paying the subscriptions for about 100 members of the local Labour party in Monklands.

Mr. McMaster: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would you clarify this point? Did you hear the hon. Member for Dover accuse the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East of paying for Labour party membership subscriptions in his constituency to ensure that he was the Member of Parliament for that constituency?

Madam Deputy Speaker: No, I did not hear that.

Mr. Shaw: That was not what I said at all. The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) is clearly trying to distort the facts. All I said was that it was possible to control the whole of Monklands district council and some £80 million of council expenditure by paying for the subscriptions for 100 people. I did not say who was paying for the subscriptions for the 100 people. I leave it to the public to work that out.

Mr. Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shaw: I have given way very generously. I have also had to cope with many points of order, which hon. Gentlemen have raised to try to stop the flow of my speech.
On employment practices in Monklands, 40 close relatives of councillors have been appointed at secret meetings of the council. That has been achieved by a chairman, the convenor of the manpower services committee, or his representative, attending every interview for a job on the council. That practice has existed since the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) started it in the 1970s when he was the council's provost.
The House has also heard of the green and pink forms used by Monk lands district council to ensure that councillors and their friends could distribute the green forms while the pink forms were left for the rest of the unemployed in Monklands. Consequently, many councillors' relatives and senior local Labour party members have jobs on the council.

Mr. McMaster: Will the hon. Gentleman answer two specific questions? First, despite what he said earlier., did not the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) appear in the excellent "Scottish Lobby" programme about five or six weeks ago and say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East had nothing to answer? Secondly, in the past year the hon. Gentleman has asked several questions about Monklands, which I accept is his right as an hon. Member. How many questions has he asked in the past year about his own constituency of Dover, and how many has he asked about Monklands?

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman must realise that Dover has assisted area status as a result of my efforts. It has much more going for it than Monklands, and Dover council is much more efficient. My constituents are extremely worried about the cost that they are paying for Labour-controlled councils like Monklands, where the Labour party is seriously abusing expenditure.

Mr. Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shaw: No. I wish to make some headway now.
There has been a tremendous abuse of employment practices in Monklands. They have been purloined for the benefit of councillors and their families. A case has even been reported recently in which Councillor Fitzpatrick chaired an appeal committee of the council against an unfair dismissal involving three employees in which he upheld the dismissal. Having dismissed the three employees, he arranged for his brother-in-law to fill one of the jobs. The only problem was that the three men were later found to have been unfairly dismissed.
When the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East wrote to the council saying that that seemed to be wrong practice and unfair, he was told to go jump. The council was not interested in his views. The councillors in Monklands district council are more powerful than the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shaw: Not for the moment.
The other concern about employment practices which I want to bring to the attention of the House is that some 16 senior district Labour party members are employed by the council: Joe Barrett has family members employed. Celia Conwell, Des O'Neill, Joy Scott, Jay Brown, Matt Costello, Andy Burns, Stephen Fagan and Martin Dempsey are all senior Labour party officials employed by the council. According to the local newspaper, those do not include other Labour party members, whose numbers in some council departments are understood to be high. The Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser said on 25 September 1992:
Two members of the District Labour party executive were among those promoted into highly-paid jobs in the Housing department.
Others also include the election agent of a high-ranking Labour councillor, who also received a housing promotion, and the son of another senior member.
A council spokesman admitted the posts had not been advertised or interviews conducted … a leading Labour party member said, `Monklands has become the Tammany hall of Scotland."'
This week's edition of the paper has discovered that a district Labour party member, Alex Brown, a deputy house maintenance manager—why a deputy is needed I do not know; when I was on Kingston council 20 years ago we abolished deputy posts, but there seems to be a plethora of them in Monklands—and his four sons are all employed by the council. There is more too: a daughter-in-law, a brother-in-law and possibly one more family member. It is believed that at least seven members of the family are employed by the council. They enjoy the knowledge that the senior member of the family is also a senior member of the party.
Let us examine the planning process in Monklands and how the council operates its planning policies. Is the agenda under the control of the councillors, or under the control of a small clique of them? There have been breaches of local plans. In 1981 Monklands district council


passed a local plan, but when Councillor Brooks, the leader of the council, wanted planning permission, the Labour group gave him it, even though it breached seven of the—

Mr. McMaster: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has just said that the Labour group on a Scottish council gave a member of that council planning permission for a development. Under Scottish law, planning permission is a quasi-judicial function and Labour groups are not allowed to participate in group decisions on planning permission. Is the hon. Gentleman allowed to say such things in the Chamber.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. An hon. Member might want to refute the point in a speech, but it is not one for the Chair.

Mr. Connarty: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just said that it was not a point of order.

Mr. Connarty: On a point of order of my own, then. The Chair in this Chamber is supposed to protect the rights of the citizens of this country. Surely such defamation should not be allowed in the name of this Chamber?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Members of this House have certain privileges that enable them to make statements. The only proviso is that we expect them to advance their views with circumspection and with due regard to the fact that they enjoy these privileges. The privileges exist nevertheless.

Mr. Shaw: The fact remains that seven of Monklands' planning policies were breached. That is not a point of contention; it is admitted by everyone. Councillor Brooks correctly declared his interest at the official council meeting when the breach was effected, but I understand that the vote was taken at a Labour group meeting before the council meeting at which it was agreed to back Councillor Brooks' development. He received that backing even though the director of planning was not in agreement, and even though seven policies under the local plan were breached: policies H15, IND16, IND17, IND20, IND21, COM2(2), COM13 and COM15. But the leader of the council got his planning permission anyway, and he implemented it.

Mr. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the year 1981 and made the scurrilous accusation that there was a breach of planning policy. As I recall, the director of planning in Monklands district council that year was Mr. Andrew Cowe, who later became the managing director of Renfrew district council. He still holds that post and is a former leader of Renfrew district council. I worked closely with him and hold him in the highest regard. Is the hon. Gentleman making any specific allegation against Mr. Andrew Cowe?

Mr. Shaw: I understand that that particular planning officer left Monklands and went to Renfrew district council because of his disgust at the fact that the local plan in Monklands had been breached.

Mr. McMaster: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know the person whose name is being called

into question very well indeed on a professional level. Mr. Andrew Cowe chose to leave Monklands district council because he sought promotion to a larger council—Renfrew district council. That was a scurrilous remark against an individual who cannot defend himself here.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must make clear to hon. Members the difference between disagreements and points of order. Of course the hon. Member may disagree strongly. I hope that he will have the opportunity to speak later, but that is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. McMaster: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already said that it is not a point of order.

Mr. Shaw: I have made it clear I am not in any way criticising the gentleman who has just been named. He did very well to make it clear that he was not in agreement with what the Labour party was doing in Monklands district council. He did not like what the Labour party was up to and he went on record saying that the way in which the Labour party was operating in Monklands district council was totally corrupt and wrong. He did it in the most obvious way possible, yet still they voted through the planning permission that breached seven areas of the local plan to give considerable financial benefit to the leader of the council.
Many people may well ask who gets the planning permission that counts in Monklands. I have already spoken of the leader of the council who got his planning permission for Dundyvan road. He built some flats, some offices and a nursing home. He took a Scottish Development Agency loan of £45,000 and got the agency to write it off, without repaying the loan. His company still owns the land and the building despite the fact that it went into liquidation, the creditors were not paid and the taxpayer lost some £45,000.
More significant is the planning permission that S. L. Homes Ltd. has managed to achieve. The company's last filed accounts in 1991 showed assets of £7 million and liabilities of nearly £7 million. The company was in financial difficulties, and it is supported by Scottish Legal Life Assurance, a company that has many policyholders and investors. The company had appointed directors to the board of S. L. Homes Ltd., but did the assurance company's directors know about the loan of £35,000?

Mr. Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has raised the discussions of constituency Labour parties. Unfortunately, he does not realise that they have nothing at all to do with district Labour parties or councils in Scotland. Now he is talking about a company—not a local authority but a company in the house building business.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that is a point of order for the Chair. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) will relate his remarks to local government.

Mr. Shaw: I am about to talk about how a company got planning permission in the Monklands district council area.

Mr. McMaster: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing me to raise this


matter. Will you confirm that your ruling on my previous intervention correctly made it clear that, although Conservative Members have the right to say what they say, that does not necessarily mean it is true?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair, happily, has no responsibility for the accuracy or otherwise of hon. Members' points made in speeches. My only concern is whether matters are points of order for the Chair.. I have tried to make a distinction between those that are and those that are not. Of course, all hon. Members are free, through an intervention or their speech, to refute matters that are put forward by other hon. Members.

Mr. Shaw: If the hon. Members for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) and for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) have any doubts about the truth of this, I commend to them the information from Scottish Companies House, which shows clearly that S. L. Homes Ltd. lent £35,000 to a family company owned and controlled by the leader of Monk lands district council. It lent money in exchange for planning permissions given by Monklands district council. The fact is that the council leader, through his family, is connected to Commercial and Industrial Maintenance Ltd. S. L. Homes Ltd. has received planning permissions in connection with two property developments in the Monklands area. S. L. Homes Ltd. is owned and controlled by Mr. Brian Dempsey, the son of the former Labour Member of Parliament for Monklands, West, who is currently trying to get control of Glasgow Celtic football club.

Mr. McMaster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shaw: I give way to the hon. Member for Paisley, South.

Mr. McMaster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but he is a little behind the times. Mr. Brian Dempsey and Mr. Fergus McCann now have control of Glasgow Celtic football club.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman may not have checked the corporate returns correctly. Mr. Dempsey has not joined the board of directors and does not exercise control from that point of view, perhaps because he is concerned about the fact that five directors of his company all resigned on 23 December last year, according to information that I have today and that has just been filed at Companies House. Those five directors were appointed by Scottish Legal Life Assurance. Clearly, there is real concern that they had a conflict between their interest in looking after the interests of depositors in Scottish Legal Life Assurance and their interests as directors of S. L. Homes Ltd., a company lending £35,000 to a company owned and controlled by the family of the council leader of Monklands district council.

Mr. Connarty: Obviously, once again the hon. Gentleman is not up to date with what is going on. I understand that the company that was owned by Mr. Brian Dempsey was bought by a major construction company for more than £20 million. The company to which he refers is now in the hands of yet another company, which might explain why a relationship between Scottish Legal Life Assurance and Mr. Dempsey's company may no longer exist.
It might be advisable for the hon. Gentleman to step outside the Chamber if he wishes to make accusations against someone whom I know to be a very honourable member of the building profession and who is highly respected in Scotland, not just for his interest in a football team but for the profitable work that he has done for many people in the building industry. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps get back to the drivel that he was talking a few minutes ago.

Mr. Shaw: If the hon. Gentleman is correct, he is admitting on behalf of Mr. Dempsey that the returns at Companies House are false and fraudulent. He should, therefore, be careful about what he is admitting on behalf of Mr. Dempsey, with whom I believe he has no personal financial connection. If the hon. Gentleman is declaring an interest, financial or otherwise, with Mr. Dempsey, I should be interested in hearing the interest that he wishes to disclose.

Mr. Connarty: Let me make it quite plain. I have no financial interest or any other interest in the business of Mr. Brian Dempsey. In fact, I have even less interest in the football team in which he has an interest than most hon. Members in Scotland. I have no connection at all. I am suggesting to the hon. Gentleman that if he wants to throw mud at limited targets—because of the political process, the limited targets that he has chosen at the moment have little redress—he should be willing to step outside the House when he talks about someone who is respected in the business community in Scotland. As the gentleman's father was a Member of the House—James Dempsey was my Member of Parliament for a number of years and is a very honourable man—the hon. Gentleman should really restrain himself in the vilification in which he participates in the House. It does not do him any credit. If he steps outside the House, it may do him a great financial disservice.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman seems to be keen to defend Mr. Dempsey. Perhaps he would like to explain why, when Mr. Dempsey was on the board of directors of S. L. Homes—he is still recorded at Companies House as being on the board of directors—the company, having obtained planning permissions in the Monklands area, then paid the leader of the district council's family company £35,000. Why did Mr. Dempsey authorise that payment? There is no mud, and no distortion; it is on record at Companies House in Edinburgh. The hon. Gentleman can look it up for himself in the records of Commercial and Industrial Maintenance Ltd.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Get on with it.

Mr. Shaw: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am trying to get on with it, but there have been a good many interruptions from his colleagues, which he could stop if he wanted to.

Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not. He and I have discussed fraud in other debates, and have listened to each other's speeches with great interest. This is a matter of fact.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow a conversation between the hon. Member who has the Floor and another hon. Member sitting on the Front Bench—or anywhere else, for that matter.

Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he had debated questions of fraud. Is he now accusing Mr. Brian Dempsey and any member of Monklands district council of fraud?

Mr. Shaw: Certainly I should like an answer to my question. I think that many people will take different views on how family members come to be employed by the council, how people who pay their subscription to the Labour party get jobs on the council, how planning permissions are obtained on the council and how money changes hands around the time planning permissions are granted. People are going to ask, "How has this happened? Why do all these transactions seem to coincide, involving jobs, money and membership of the Labour party? How is it that money has gone from S. L. Homes to a company owned by the family of the leader of Monklands district council at the same time as the granting of planning permissions to the property development company?" The position is less than satisfactory.

Mr. McMaster: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am no more here to defend the integrity of Brian Dempsey—although I think he has a lot of integrity—than he is here to defend that of Pamella Bordes, or some Daily Star photographer who was badly beaten up outside his house. Let me ask him a question, however, when will he stop misrepresenting Monklands, and start.

Mr. Shaw: That shows the desperate lengths to which Labour will go to cover up the matter. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am taking facts straight from Companies House, and that I have researched the information. As I said earlier, it comes from Labour's own statements; even its own report contained a mild criticism of Monklands district council. The hon. Gentleman is becoming very desperate. He is getting things out of proportion.
The losses in four council companies in Monklands—the Quadrant shopping centre, MDC Windows, the Time Capsule (Monklands) Ltd. and Summerlee Heritage Trust—amount to £6 million in three years. We are all paying for those losses; every man, woman and child in the country is paying for them, through taxation. Mysteriously, several of those companies have managed to win tenders from the council. It has been suggested to me that that is because the tenders from competing companies are always opened in advance, and the council companies are told what to bid. It is strange that loss-making companies always manage to win tenders in Monklands when they are controlled by the council.
Earlier I paid tribute to Dover district council's housing department. I should now like to deal with some of the problems in Monklands district council's housing department so that a proper contrast can be drawn between a good council and a bad council. Monklands is a very bad council.
Labour's policy in Monklands has been against council house sales, except where those sales are to councillors and their families. The council policy has been extended to allow sales to councillor's sons as well. Mrs. Willamina Wylie, a 63-year-old widow, was not allowed to buy her council home at 36 Newlands street. However, Councillor

Gilson's son at 28 Newlands street was allowed to buy his home. Two other council tenants in Newlands street were refused. The council could not explain the position to the ombudsman and, for that reason alone, Monklands district council was found guilty of maladministration in its housing department.
When Martin Dempsey, a Labour party member, ex-councillor and now a council employee—the Labour party looks after its ex-councillors in Monklands—needed a council house, he was put ahead of 300 homeless people. He beat Mr. Lenny Miles and his fiancee who had been waiting for a council house for four years. Of course, Mr. Lenny Miles and his fiancee are not paid up members of the Labour party, so they have to go to the back of the queue when Mr. Martin Dempsey is involved.
Other abuses of the housing department are numerous. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that an independent housing department is essential if the housing is to be managed fairly between all applicants and repairs are to be carried out fairly, without preference to individual tenants. Transfers can be abused to the extent that councillors and their families receive preferential treatment unless there is proper independence.
Additionally, decisions about which homes are improved can be made fairly and properly only in an independently run operation. Much council money is spent on housing repairs and improvements. Decisions about the allocation of that money mean that considerable power can be exercised over the lives of ordinary people. Allegations of preferential treatment for councillors and their families are commonplace in Monklands.
Factors that give rise to a lack of independence in housing decision-making in Monklands include the fact that the wife of the director of housing is employed in the council's Time Capsule leisure centre. It compromises his independence and he must ask whether he can make independent decisions when his wife's employment is controlled by councillors who can cause him personal financial loss if he does not go along with the decisions that they want him to make.
The provost of the council, Councillor Gilson, is a former convenor of the housing committee. He has a daughter working in the housing department. The convenor of the general purposes committee, Councillor Fitzpatrick, has a wife who is a senior housing officer and a nephew who is a rent officer. The convenor of the housing committee, Councillor Betty Leitch, is also compromised by the fact that she has a daughter employed in the library service. All that has led to a number of problems involving housing decision-making.
Some years ago, Councillor Gilson moved from his council-owned property in Henderson street, which is regarded as a fairly poor area, to a better council house in upmarket Blairpark ward, which is not the ward that he represents. He proceeded to buy that house using his full discount for the years in his previous house. There is a feeling locally that the move was arranged by Labour councillors in order to provide him with a virtual gift of a comparatively upmarket house. Councillor Gilson bought his home at a time when he publicly supported Labour party policy against the sale of council houses.
Councillor Smith obtained a council tenancy amid much controversy last year in an upmarket area, which is not the ward that he represents. I have mentioned Martin Dempsey, the ex-councillor who managed to get a council house. Councillor Cairns has managed to get a house that


was bought by the local regional council. Also, Christopher Barrett, the son of ex-councillor, Joe Barrett, now a local Labour party treasurer, who unfortunately had to resign as a councillor because of a little problem connected with a fiddle involving his expenses, obtained his grandfather' s council house at 15 Dunothar avenue. No one locally ever saw Christopher Barrett sleep a night in that house, yet the grandson's name suddenly appeared on the electoral register and he suddenly became eligible for a tenancy in a house with which he had no connection other than the fact that his grandfather lived there. Meanwhile, many homeless people in Monklands were denied council houses.
I now move on to the finance department, where a £1,000 cheque made out to a local builder recently went missing. It was discovered two months later to have been paid into the leader of the council's personal bank account, despite the fact that it was made payable to a local builder. The finance department altered the records of the council to pretend that the cheque was a payment to the council leader for his expenses. It did not tell the auditor, who discovered it only when a Scottish Television programme identified that this had happened last year. The council had kept this secret to itself.

Mr. Connarty: I am sure that with his deep knowledge of Scottish local government, from the perspective of Dover, the hon. Gentleman will realise that any misappropriation of funds or expenditure outwith the financial remits of the council would bring a qualification by the auditor on the council's accounts. I read its accounts because the hon. Member has given us such a reason to be interested in Scotland, but I could find no such qualification. In fact, I found a clear statement that there was no qualification on the accounts of Monklands district council. Can he explain why that should be so, as he appears to be accusing the finance department of losing a cheque for £1,000, misappropriating it and putting in a different account under a different title?

Mr. Shaw: I am not responsible for the district auditor's report, but the leader of the council does not deny that the cheque was made out to a local builder. Nor does he deny that it ended up in his bank account and that he had signed it on the back and endorsed it. If the district auditor did not feel that he had to refer to that in his report, that is a matter for him, but it does not say much for audit standards if the auditor felt that he could not refer to the fact that the council's finance department had altered its records to make that cheque, made payable to a local builder, an advance on expenses.
The law and administration department has recently had a problem—after the audit date to which the hon. Member for Falkirk, East referred. A taxi licensing fraud has been discovered; some £45,000 is estimated to have gone astray. The police are investigating; an employee has resigned.
I shall conclude by saying that the standards of local government in many areas of the country are quite high—in areas under Conservative administration and control. In Monklands, the country is being let down. Matters are serious and are getting worse in Monklands. Serious matters are being brought to people's attention week in and week out in Monklands. The fact is that there is nepotism, corruption and wrongdoing in Monklands. That has been

established in the local newspapers and accepted widely, yet we still have silence from the Leader of the Opposition. We still hear nothing from him.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on being selected to propose a motion on the subject of local government. The nation is fortunate that the debate has taken place so early in the morning and that so few people have had to endure the rantings and sheer nonsense that purport to be his speech.
Perhaps one should look into the individual psyche of the hon. Member to find out why he has not used the debate to raise important issues of concern to his constituents. We have heard about Redbridge, Islington, Lewisham and even Tameside but there was no mention of Pineham ward and the events of 25 November 1993 which, I am sure, are etched on the hon. Gentleman's heart.
This is no ordinary man; this is a man obsessed, a man in need of help. Monklands has become a means by which the hon. Gentleman obtains self-gratification. There is another word for it but I understand from the Clerks that it is unparliamentary so I shall not use it. I can only repeat the advice given to him by his mother many years ago: if he keeps going on about it, there is a real danger that he will go blind.
It is time that Tory scaremongering and petty politicking was blown open. The Conservative party and the hon. Gentleman are attempting to use diversionary scare tactics to cover their sordid footsteps but it will not work. Where there is so much as an insinuation of incorrectness in local authorities, we as a party insist that it is investigated, not behind closed doors with Members of Parliament manoeuvring and interfering in due process but out in the open where public scrutiny ensures that it is properly dealt with.
However, in a recent interview, the hon. Member for Dover revealed the Conservative party's true view of how local authorities should be run—not democratically by councillors but by certain Members of Parliament, such as the hon. Member for Dover, interfering. He told the Local Government Chronicle:
MPs have to be tough. If there are any suspicions about a councillor and his actions, whatever party he may belong to, then that party has to question whether he should be readopted.
The report continues:
Mr. Shaw said he had taken such action in his constituency.
In the light of the comments of the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups on Dover council, Councillor Sansum wrote to the hon. Gentleman asking him to clarify which councillors he had removed in his democratic selection process.
There was a great deal of correspondence between the hon. Gentleman and Councillor Sansum, ending with a letter dated 8 July 1993 and signed by the hon. Gentleman. I have a copy of it and I should like to remind the hon. Gentleman of its contents. He wrote:
I am far too busy on constituency matters to worry about the press being 100 per cent. correct.
That is his view on accuracy and the way in which he is quoted.

Mr. McMaster: The admission of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) that he is too busy to worry about


whether the press is 100 per cent. correct is similar to the comment that I believe he made to a female photographer of the Daily Star at about the same time.

Mr. Vaz: That may be so, but I do not know whether it has anything to do with local government. I am, however, grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out.
The hon. Member for Dover is not so keen to intervene when his constituents face ruin and hardship because of the closure of mines. Labour follows the law, which is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition has twice written to the Secretary of State for Scotland stating that, if there is any evidence of impropriety, an investigation must be instigated. That has not happened. Allegations should be made through the channels of evidence and proof, not in behind-the-hand whispers.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber earlier today when the Prime Minister said:
If the hon. Gentleman has any firm charges to make, perhaps he should make them other than by innuendo and under privilege of the House.
They are not my words, but those of the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Dover has the guts to go outside and make the allegations that he has made tonight.
Over the past year, the Labour party has continued to grow at local level. We are now the largest single party in local government with 9,129 councillors compared to the Conservatives' 7,846 and the Liberal Democrats' 4,088. To the lists of councils that we control we now add Derby city council. I wish the new Labour authority there all success.
The reason for our success in local government is simple and irrefutable. It is that people have seen that Labour councils offer the best services at the most reasonable rates. Labour is proud of its achievements in local government. There is a plethora of examples of excellence in local government. For example, Labour leaders such as Teresa Stewart in Birmingham, Grahame Stringer in Manchester, Phil Homer in The Wrekin, Margaret Moran in Lewisham, Jeremy Beecham in Newcastle, Brian Flood in North Tyneside, John Ingham in Plymouth, John Taylor in Nottingham and many more continue to struggle to provide the best services possible under a Conservative regime that has made Britain the most centralised country in Europe.
The Government have set themselves the task of destroying local authorities and, with them, the democracy that has acted to restrain the corruption with which the hon. Member for Dover is so infatuated. Since 1979 the Conservatives have introduced 155 separate Acts of Parliament interfering with and undermining local government. Not one of those Acts has improved, or really attempted to improve, local democracy. Local individuals are now more remote from the decision-making process than at any time in living memory. People's taxes are no longer spent locally to improve conditions and services. Instead, they are directly controlled by Westminster, where absurd equations are used to calculate what percentage of money raised locally may be spent locally.
The Government have adopted a cynical chain of blame, which ensures that local authorities are held responsible for decisions that are made by Ministers and their henchmen. If ever it seems that Ministers are to be held responsible for

their despicable decisions the truth is quickly shielded or the blame passed on more quickly than bad news. The three local government Ministers—the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who is here tonight—adopt the "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" stance when the blame comes round, or use the Prime Minister's favourite phrase, "It's not a matter for me."
The Conservative party has presided over the destruction of all that British democracy had to be proud of—the destruction of open and democratic government, once seen as a tenet central to Conservative ideals. Lord Salisbury, one of the Conservative party's greatest leaders, praised and respected local government and insisted on increasing the powers of local authorities. As he said in 1885—119 years ago—at a rally in Newport:
Large reforms in our local government are necessary and in the direction of increasing powers to local government. You must provide local government with sufficient power and add to this power by diminishing the excessive and exaggerated powers which have been heaped upon central authorities in London.
The Government are guided by self-interest and they fear open, just and democratic local government. They should return to Salisbury's ideals, and not the questionable basics to which some Ministers have been happy to return.
Yesterday, during Department of the Environment questions, we had yet another example of a Conservative Minister changing his tune to suit the situation. The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, in reply to a question on the council tax, went into a long and—may I say?—flawed explanation as to why it is incorrect to use average council tax rates to compare different councils. Three questions later the same Minister was merrily comparing authorities, using—yes—average council tax rates. The confusion is understandable because, no matter how the Conservatives have tried to hide it and Ministers have tried to wriggle, as the Prime Minister did earlier today, the fact remains that, in the financial year 1994–95, average council tax bills per household will be £40 lower in Labour areas than in Conservative areas and £26 lower than in Liberal Democrat areas—and this at a time when Conservative-led authorities are receiving massive funding, poured into them at the cost of the most needy.
Wandsworth council receives 11.6 per cent. of the non-needs-related grant for the whole of Britain, even though its population constitutes only 0.5 per cent. of England's. If, however, the Conservatives wish to talk about tax, should not we scrutinise their record nationally? Before the last election the Conservatives, in their do-anything, say-anything panic to win power, promised that there would be no new taxes and that they would cut taxes year on year.

Mr. McMaster: I realise that I am asking my hon. Friend a question that it may be difficult for him to answer, but can he imagine why the hon. Member for Dover is the only Member to record in the Register of Members' Interests the fact that his companies are "dormant"? Is there any tax advantage in doing that?

Mr. Vaz: I do not know, but I am sure that we shall be down at Companies house tomorrow checking the records, as the hon. Member for Dover spends more time there than he appears to spend in the Chamber—or in Dover.
The Government's promises were made not on a wet night in Dudley, but at every press conference and public


meeting that the Conservatives held before the general election. Now, less than two years later, we are faced with tax increases and new taxes. Most people—those earning less than £60,000 a year—are now paying more than they were when Denis Healey was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and promised to tax the rich until the pips squeaked. Under the Conservative Government, not only have the pips squeaked, but the juice has run dry.
The revenue has been wilfully squandered on toadying up to Conservative supporters and attempting to cover up the economic bankruptcy and failure of Conservative dogma. Under Conservative party rule not only have people had to endure spiralling tax, uncontrollable unemployment rates, mounting crime, decaying infrastructure and a breakdown in social standards, but the means of correcting those unacceptable changes have been placed beyond the reach of the people most affected.
The growth in influence of that much-loved Tory master, the quango, has reached the stage where quangos' budgets rival those of local authorities. If they continue to increase in influence, it is calculated that by 1996 quangos will control £54 billion of public money—almost a quarter of all Government expenditure.
The most worrying aspect of that development is that quangos can spend their money as they please, with no checks whatever, whereas the way in which local authorities run by democratically elected councillors allocate their budgets is under the direct control of the Conservative party—most notably through the draconian capping legislation so adored in Marsham street. Quite rightly, if a councillor is found to have committed fraud or wasted council money, he or she will be surcharged, or will be subject to criminal proceedings. Yet when questions are asked, members of quango boards are carefully and gracefully allowed to retire from their positions with a golden handshake and a gong.
Quangos are not only undemocratic and unprincipled but inefficient. For every £60 lost by central Government and quangos in fraud, mismanagement and waste, only £1 is lost by local government. The Property Services Agency lost £65.6 million, and Wessex health authority wasted £20 million on a computer that did not work. West Midlands health authority squandered £10 million on botched privatisation; the chairman resigned and was given a golden handshake.
If those standards were repeated in local authorities, there would rightly be public outcry, and the events would have to be fully investigated. The hon. Member for Dover would no doubt have booked his air ticket or rail ticket just to have a look at the area, like a grand inquisitor. But with the quangos everything is done to conceal the true situation of the Tory placemen and placewomen.

Mr. McMaster: One of the other allowances that Members of Parliament are fortunate enough to obtain—it is absolutely legitimate—is an office costs allowance. We all try to spend that to our satisfaction. At one time the hon. Member for Dover derived great satisfaction from his office costs allowance.

Mr. Vaz: I am grateful for that information from my hon. Friend.
Probably because the successes are Labour run, the hon. Member for Dover is insistent that we concentrate not on

the successes of local councils in continuing to provide efficient services to local people, but on alleged impropriety.
There are a few home truths that the Conservative party has tried to keep hidden from scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Conservative Brent. Brent has the worst record on arrears. It is also difficult to know who is in control of Brent on any given day. Councillor Blackman's Tory group, if one may call it a group, splits amoeba-like every few months. Tory councillors move resolutions on a range of bizarre subjects, including female circumcision. What a shambles. Nationally the Government have failed to collect £1.7 billion of tax owed for 1992–93. The eight highest council rent chargers in London are Conservative, with the local authority of the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction having the worst record. Westminster and Wandsworth combined owe £552 million. The three London boroughs with the largest debt per head are all Conservative.
In contrast, Labour councils not only have lower council taxes but have won national awards for efficiency and quality of service at a greater rate than those controlled by any other party. That is the true result of Labour control. Which councils did the Secretary of State choose to launch City Pride? Manchester and Birmingham, two excellent Labour councils. It must also be realised that where Labour authorities have got themselves into financial difficulties it is because they have tried to provide for local people and invest in their future, not cynically squander resources in attempts to influence the political balance of a borough.
Local government needs to be supported, not ridiculed. There is a new breed of civic entrepreneur who, if given the opportunity, can lead the country forward bravely into the next millennium. Such people have to be free to do so, free from the shackles of central Government and openly responsible and accountable to their electorate. I have seen for myself the abundant talent in local government during the progress of the City 2020 inquiry, of which I am chair, as it has travelled the length and breadth of the country. Unless we return to a time when local government provided a tool of municipal pride, we will continue to see our cities and society dragged down through the mire of corruption and dirty dealing.
This is not a private vision held by the Labour party. It is echoed by the private sector over and over again, most recently by the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, when he demanded on Monday that central Government allow councils greater flexibility over their own functions, particularly through greater control of their own money.
Local government, through democratic and accountable control, is the most efficient means of providing services for local people. Local councils need to be freed from central Government intervention so that once again people receive what they want and need most efficiently instead of suffering the present system which provides only for Conservative supporters on the boards of various unrepresentative bodies.
As the hon, Member for Dover mentioned the debt of Labour councils, I shall end by pointing out to him and to the House that the Government have borrowed twice as much in a single financial year as the net total that Labour councils have borrowed over 60 years. The Government's public sector borrowing requirement for this year alone is £49.8 billion. The total external debt of all Labour local councils, built up over decades, is £22.7 billion. The


Government's borrowing for 1993–94 is more than communist China's over 50 years—China's external debt at the end of 1992 was £45.8 billion. Westminster and Wandsworth each have a bigger debt than Mongolia. Conservative Croydon has a bigger debt than the Seychelles.
Those are debts that are currently owed. We need no lectures on debt from the Conservative party, and we expect to receive none. It is time the Government understood that local government needs to be able to carry out its functions in the best way it can. It is time that a real civic vision was realised.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I am responsible for local government in England, and it is perhaps not surprising that at this time of the night the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) had to have recourse to that sort of knockabout speech. Local government is, of course, very important. I would certainly be prepared to make a prediction here and now at the Dispatch Box that after the local government elections in May there will be more Conservative councillors in England and fewer Labour councillors. The hon. Gentleman knows that people in the Labour party are worried that it will lose control of councils such as Birmingham, Kirklees and others. One of the reasons why it will lose is that people know that Conservative councils cost less.
Let me try to help the hon. Member for Leicester, East with his problem on averages. It is simple. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) wishes to pretend that the way to assess council tax payments fairly is by an average council tax. But, of course, no one pays an average council tax. People pay a particular band. If one compares band A with band A and band B with band B, Conservative councils cost less.

Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baldry: No, let me explain this to the hon. Gentleman. If one takes the average of Conservative councils at band A and the average of Labour councils at band A across the country, Conservative councils cost £99 less than Labour councils at band A. If one takes each and every separate band, Conservative councils cost less. People understand and appreciate that. They can see it in their own council tax bill. They can compare it with neighbouring authorities. They are not stupid. They appreciate that to take an average of the totality of the housing stock of an area is to produce a statistically meaningless figure. The hon. Gentleman knows that, too.

Mr. Vaz: Is the Minister saying that the Conservative party and the Government have never compared the average figures?

Mr. Baldry: I have just explained to the hon. Gentleman that the only average is the average of all the Conservative band A council taxes compared with the average of all Labour band A council taxes. Whatever band one chooses to take, band for band—

Mr. McMaster: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman has been up and down like a yo-yo all evening. He has ants in his pants.
Of the 10 highest council taxes announced, seven are from Labour authorities and none has been set by a Conservative council. Of the 10 lowest council taxes announced, none has been set by a Labour council. Let us take the highest 10 councils taxes at band C, although one could take any band. The highest is Liverpool, where two different factions of the Labour party are busily disputing who should run Liverpool.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East thought that the Labour party might gain seats in Manchester. I should be surprised at that, as Manchester Labour group has set the second highest council tax in the country at £691 for band C. Newcastle upon Tyne, Coventry, Langbaurgh, Salford, Bristol, Cleethorpes, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool, all Labour controlled, are in the top 10.
When one looks at the lowest 10 council taxes, one sees not one Labour name among them.

Mr. McMaster: Does the Minister accept that we need no lessons in arithmetic from him? Did he not come to a European Standing Committee yesterday morning which eight Conservatives and seven Opposition Members had the right to attend and yet he managed to lose? Is that some sort of record?

Mr. Baldry: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman can add up to 15. If that is the best that the Labour party can do, even at 3.48 in the morning, it may well explain why I am perfectly content to rest with my prediction that after the local government elections there will be more Conservative councillors in England and fewer Labour councillors.

Mr. Connarty: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baldry: No, I will not give way again as I have very little time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover raised some sensible issues about local authority debt. Again, there is no way in which the Opposition can disguise the fact that Birmingham—the largest local authority in the country—has a debt higher than that of Albania. It took 40 years of communist rule to achieve that debt in Albania—[Interruption.]—but it has taken only 10 years of Conservative control in Birmingham.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) that repeated seated interventions are not helpful, particularly when they make it difficult for the Chair to hear the remarks of the hon. Member who has the Floor.

Mr. Vaz: rose—

Mr. Baldry: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman as I have given way before.
What the people of Birmingham understand, and why I am perfectly confident that Labour will lose control of Birmingham in May, is that the amount that Birmingham city council collects by way of council tax is sufficient to pay only the interest on the council's outstanding debt. The amount that council taxpayers pay in Birmingham merely pays the interest on the outstanding debt of that local authority. People in Birmingham understand and appreciate that, and that fact will be reflected in the May elections. I have absolutely no doubt that we shall win seats and take control in Birmingham in May.
Much of the debate has been about local authority corruption, which must be a matter for the auditors of the local authority involved. That is why in England we have a system involving the district auditor, the Audit Commission and the local government ombudsman. Local authorities are independent corporate organisations with powers and duties set out in statute—

In accordance with Mr. Speaker's Ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 191—the debate was concluded.

Orders of the Day — World Bank

Mr. John Denham: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the World bank, even in the middle of the night. I hope that the debate will be about how the World bank and its operations can be improved. I hope that we will consider how improved accountability to this Parliament and to Parliaments and peoples in other northern countries can play a role in improving the World bank's effectiveness.
I want to outline why the role of the World bank in the world today is so important, much more important than the time spent discussing it in the House would suggest. I want to show why the United Kingdom is important to the operation of the World bank and why what that bank does is of direct importance to the UK, in terms of its development policy, our foreign policy and our international economic policy. I shall argue that the secrecy, and the lack of openness and scrutiny that characterise the UK's involvement in the World bank, must be challenged.
I am not speaking against the existence of the World bank, but we must recognise that the background to the debate is one of growing demands and criticisms from popular organisations in the south and many of their allies in the north about the bank's role. Increasingly, popular and representative organisations in the south say that they have suffered too much at the hands of that institution, from failed projects that have harmed them, not helped the poorest and left them with unpayable debts. They have suffered too much from structural adjustment programmes that have failed to deliver what was promised and, in many cases, left the poorest people worse off than they were before. They have suffered too much from the bank's promotion of micro and macro-economic policies which do not take into account the problems of poor people in poor countries.
It is not surprising that, around the world, increasing numbers of people are arguing that we would all be better off without the World bank. That is not the best starting point for the debate. The world needs a mechanism for transferring capital from richer countries to poorer ones. There is a need beyond bilateral assistance for a multilateral organisation that is able to raise, organise and co-ordinate the transfer of funds from the north to the south, whether in the form of aid loans, highly concessional loans through the International Development Association of the World bank or in the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, through raising funds from money markets at low margins that would not be available from developing countries. That function needs to be carried out in the global economy. There is also a case for an agency that can pool and bring together the best knowledge of the best development practice and propagate that knowledge. In other words, if no institution similar to the World bank existed, many people, including many of its fiercest critics, would be calling for something like it to be established. The problem is not the idea of the World bank but the way in which it fulfils its role, and its freedom from adequate scrutiny and adequate accountability for its activities. The question is not whether we need the bank but how it can be changed.
I hope to outline some of the major concerns about the activities and the role of the World bank, but I would say


at this point that it is central to my belief that the bank cannot be successful in its role unless it is an open, transparent, intellectually honest and accountable institution. Today, although some improvements have been made, it still lacks those characteristics. Above all, the bank should be open, transparent, honest and accountable to the people, the civil organisations and the Governments of borrowing countries.
Although much of what I shall say will be about the accountability of the World bank to this Parliament in a northern country, the major impact of the World bank's activities is in the developing countries, which are borrowing countries, and a much bigger—indeed, more important in many ways—debate would be about the way in which the bank's operations in developing countries should be held genuinely accountable to the peoples and Governments of those countries. I want to put that point on the record.
I believe, however, that a significant part in changing the bank can be achieved by improving its accountability to northern Governments, which in effect control the voting power of the bank. Although the bank has more than 100 member countries, a relatively small number of northern countries hold the vast majority of the shares in the World bank and, therefore, the vast majority of the voting power. I believe that improving accountability of the bank to its member Governments, and of those Governments to their Parliaments, could play an important role in improving the effectiveness of the bank and its operation.
The United Kingdom has an especially significant role in the World bank. It is the fifth largest shareholder in the World bank group and, as such, is one of only five countries entitled to appoint its own executive director of the bank representing that country alone, rather than, as is the normal practice for the vast majority of member Governments of the World bank, having an executive director who is required to represent a large and sometimes bizarre coalition of member Governments. So this country is still one of the most significant players in the World bank group. The scrutiny of the role played by the United Kingdom in the World bank group is therefore of special importance.
Our role is also important financially and should be of concern to taxpayers in this country. Christian Aid calculates that about 10 per cent. of aid spending in this country goes to the World bank group. Contributions to the International Development Association, the soft loan arm of the World bank, totalled £1.6 billion between 1982 and 1991. Since then, a further increase in payments into the IDA has been agreed by the House. That is a very substantial contribution to the IDA.
Over a similar 10-year period, another £120 million was paid by this country into the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the main market-lending window of the World bank. The total capital committed by this country to the IBRD is $3.67 billion, of which more than $110 million has been paid in. A further $30 million has been paid into the International Finance Corporation and we have committed about $50 million to the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. That is a heavy financial commitment by this country to the operations of the World bank group. One striking point is

that the scrutiny of the use of that money and of whether it is being used to achieve the aims and objectives set by the Overseas Development Administration is very poor.
Before touching on the main concerns about the activities of the World bank, I shall set out the outlines of my argument that the accountability of our Government's role in the World bank to this Parliament is far too weak. Both in practice and in theory, the accountability to this House of the British Government's role in the World bank is strictly limited. We do not know, for example, how the United Kingdom executive director in the World bank votes. It is true—we are always told this—that often there are no votes among executive directors, but there are votes on occasion. On only one occasion have the Government ever revealed the position taken in a vote by the UK executive director. That is utterly unjustifiable. Certainly after the event, there would appear to be no reason not to disclose the position taken by the UK executive director.
As votes are a relatively rare occurrence in the World bank, we also need to know what positions are taken by the UK executive director on individual projects, on individual structural adjustment loans or in the major debates that take place within the World bank about development strategy and about the role of the bank. We have little information in the House about the role played by the UK executive director.
It is almost impossible to find out when, if ever, the United Kingdom, takes a policy initiative within the World bank. There is rarely an announcement that the United Kingdom would like this or that change in policy within the World bank group, and there is rarely an evaluation of whether our Government have been successful in achieving such a change of policy. That is another sector in which we should have information.
There have been major reports, to which I shall refer in due course, which have highlighted failures of the management of the bank and failures of the practice of the bank—failures to appraise, evaluate and implement projects effectively. We know from the press that there are major internal debates within the bank about how to address those shortcomings. The House has no information about any initiatives taken by the executive director or the British Government to address those shortcomings.
Members of Parliament have no access to the key internal discussion documents in which the debates take place. We do not have those documents, even though they are freely available to any citizen of other Governments within the World bank who have executive directors. The ludicrous position in which I have found myself several times in the past year is that I have been unable to obtain a document by tabling a question for the Minister, yet I have been able to obtain the same document by ringing up a two-man non-governmental organisation based in Washington which will send it to me by return post. There can be no justification for obstructing Members of Parliament trying to follow an interest.
Scrutiny of our financial contributions to the World bank is highly limited, despite the fact that nearly £2 billion has been paid out of our aid budget to the World bank group in recent years. The National Audit Office has hardly looked at the effectiveness of the money that we contribute to the World bank group or whether it is achieving the objectives of the British aid programme.
In a letter that I received on 16 March 1993, Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General, referred to a number of sujects of interest to the National Audit Office, but said that any examination would be
to the extent, of course, that our examination of Overseas Development Administration projects allows.
The mechanisms for scrutinising where our money goes and how effectively it is used are extremely limited and circumscribed to the areas of operation where the Overseas Development Administration is directly involved.
The scrutiny of the World bank group by the Select Committee system has also been extremely limited. No Select Committee has ever made a comprehensive assessment of the bank's performance or the United Kingdom's role within the World bank group. Clearly. that is fundamentally a matter for the House rather than the Government, but if the Government were open, forthcoming and encouraging in promoting scrutiny of the World bank, the Select Committees would have taken a greater interest.
Weaknesses in the structural relationship between the Government and administration here and the United Kingdom's executive director's office in Washington also hamper scrutiny. Replying to a written question asking what plans he had to improve the World bank's accountability to national Parliaments, the Minister said:
The World bank and the IMF are accountable to their shareholders, including the United Kingdom. The Government are accountable to Parliament for payments made to these institutions. These arrangements work and we therefore have no current plans to change them."—[Official Report, 17 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 384.]
I question whether the arrangements do work and whether the line of accountability is as clear and straightforward as suggested.
There is a difficulty about the position of the executive director. It is not created by the Government exclusively but arises from the constitutional position of the bank's executive directors. As a letter from the noble Baroness Chalker to me last year pointed out:
Executive directors … perform a dual function: as an official of the Bank, and as a representative of the countries which appointed or elected them. Directors are expected to act in the best interests of the Bank and its members as a whole, while reflecting the views of the country they represent.
As one of the British non-governmental organisations said, that dual responsibility—partly a member of the bank's staff and partly a Government representative—does not make for clear lines of responsibility and decision making. On many occasions in recent years, it has been unclear whether the UK executive director has felt that he is primarily a staff member of the World bank with loyalty to the staff and operations of the bank or a representative of the Government within the bank.
The mechanisms of accountability are very poor. Christian Aid has sent me a briefing on this subject. It says:
In practice in decisions on funding for the World Bank and the resulting financial subscriptions to the United Kingdom the line of accountability set out by the Minister does not work. The United Kingdom is represented at such discussions by the executive director, who makes his decisions without recourse to the UK Government. On such occasions there needs to be clarification of the executive director's accountability to Parliament and exactly whose interests he represents—the Government's or the Bank's. In addition, the absence of any provision by the Government for meaningful parliamentary debate on the United Kingdom's contribution to the World bank and for regular reviews of the work of such institutions ensure that Parliament is unable to hold the Government truly accountable for any funding decisions taken.

There are also weaknesses in the evaluation of the work of the bank. Only two types of World bank decision are ever investigated in detail by the United Kingdom Government, through the Overseas Development Administration. These are, routinely, when the ODA is itself to be directly involved in the evaluation of co-financed projects and of structural adjustment loans. There are also occasions, not routinely made public, when the UK executive director seeks guidance from the ODA on a project or loan. However, with the vast majority of loans approved by the bank, the executive director relies entirely on the assessments of the bank staff. We should seriously question whether that reliance is satisfactory, given the bank staff's poor record over the years in the appraisal, implementation and evaluation of World bank projects and structural adjustment loans.
About the only small insight into this problem that we have comes from the National Audit Office study—about the only one of its kind ever done, as far as I could establish in correspondence with the NAO. The study, published in 1992, was on overseas aid in respect of water and the environment. It states that on four of the six occasions when the ODA relied on World bank appraisals, they were less satisfactory than appraisals that the ODA would have done for its own projects. That suggests that we should seriously question claims that although the World bank staff have got it wrong in the past, they are getting it right now.
The NAO gives but scant attention to the effectiveness of the use of UK resources in the World bank group. The Public Accounts Committee is therefore rarely invited to consider the effectiveness of the use of aid money by the group. I hope that the Minister will commit himself to publishing ODA evaluations of co-financed World bank projects and to publishing any other appraisals that the ODA is, from time to time, asked to make of World bank projects by the United Kingdom executive director.
There are also weaknesses in the implementation of World bank projects, and in the extent to which the Government monitor whether the bank is effectively pursuing the policies that it has set itself. In recent years, the bank has given much greater rhetorical emphasis to involving NGOs in developing countries in discussion of its projects and adjustment loans. It became clear to me through parliamentary answers over the past year that the Government make no independent evaluation of whether the World bank is effectively involving non-governmental organisations in the south. They do not know which non-governmental organisations are involved in any particular project or whether the involvement of those non-governmental organisations has been effective.
The Government make great play of the esteem in which they hold non-governmental organisations and the value that they place on them, but when it comes to whether the World bank is carrying out its stated policies of involving non-governmental organisations, the Government's position appears to be one of disinterest.
Having dealt with the agenda and the problems of accountability, I shall now outline some of the major concerns about the past and present performance of the bank. Where I can, I shall highlight problems with the current system of accountability which I believe prevent hon. Members and our constituents from influencing both the United Kingdom's role in the institution and the bank itself.
The first concern is obviously the widespread failure of the bank to achieve its self-proclaimed over-arching priority of eliminating poverty. The bank has two main types of lending: lending for projects and structural adjustment lending.
The overall investment record of the bank is important, not just because it is a bank, but because, under the World bank system, the cost of failure of projects falls exclusively on recipient countries in the form of the destruction of lives, livelihoods and the environment that so often follows failed projects, and also in the form of a debt burden, on which payments have to be made although the borrowing country has no useful asset to generate funds.
In normal commercial banking, the lender shares the risk with the borrower. In practice, the World bank designs programmes and projects that fail, without its staff or its shareholders being accountable for their role in that failure.
The Wapenhans report, published last year on the effective implementation of World bank projects, revealed an alarming and rising rate of project and loan failures rising from 15 per cent. in 1981 to 37.5 per cent. in 1991. The record of the World bank was worsening throughout that critical decade, often referred to as the lost decade of development. Now that we are in the 1990s, we are into the lost two decades of development. The bank is now considering its response to the Wapenhans report, but we have no idea what stance the United Kingdom will take. There is never a statement or any idea of what the Government's priorities are.
It could be argued that the Wapenhans report probably took a too narrowly economic view of loan performance. The valuation of a loan should also embrace the social, environmental and anti-poverty criteria, but I do not know whether that view is shared by the United Kingdom Government. I do not know what submissions they have made to the crucial debate about the appraisal of projects by the World bank and how it judges returns on investment. It is all shrouded in mystery.
If we examine the performance of structural adjustment loans, a similar dismal picture emerges. The bank has just published a report entitled, "Adjustment in Africa: Reforms, Results and the Road Ahead". It has been described by Oxfam as
a blend of half-truths over simplifications and institutional propaganda … what was needed was an open acknowledgement of the scale of Africa's development failure—including the failure of adjustment policies to generate sustainable growth and poverty reduction.
That is in tune with what other NGOs have stated.
In a report on Zimbabwe, produced last year, Christian Aid said:
Zimbabwe has only recently started to implement a World Bank package, but already the evidence is clear. The immediate costs are devastating and unacceptable. Moreover, as in so many other African states, there is very little evidence of the economic recovery promised under the programme. The hope and determination of the post-independence years are rapidly turning to confusion and despair".
Christian Aid highlighted the fact that one of the great triumphs of Zimbabwe after an investment—a 30 per cent. increase in the rate of investment in education—had been reversed under the structural adjustment programme. For all the rhetoric of the World bank—that it wished to concentrate resources on the important sectors of the economy and that primary education is the motive for development in economic growth—the reality in

Zimbabwe was that the structural adjustment programme led to a slashing of education spending on the young people of that country.
Oxfam highlighted glaring failures in the World bank report. It highlighted the fact that Ghana, the star performer for the World bank, is many decades away from seeing its people come out of poverty, and after quite an exceptional level of external assistance. Other countries, such as the Gambia, which have been highlighted as a success, have had their success generated by a boom in the tourist industry, which has generated few economic linkages into the rest of the economy.
Earlier this week, The Guardian pointed out that Mozambique has improved its apparent economic growth per head—the most of 26 African countries in the survey from the World bank—but the poverty there has increased for the majority on a massive scale. It said:
The rich who have got rich enough to pull the average income up are a tiny and deeply resented class.
Another star performer, Sierra Leone, was described recently by Robert Kaplan, who generalised the situation in many west African countries. He spoke of
The withering away of central governments, the rise of tribal and regional domains, the unchecked spread of disease, and the growing pervasiveness of war.
In other words, the World bank has produced a travesty of an assessment of the real situation. What perhaps is most relevant to the debate is the way in which the bank seeks in public to hide the sharp differences of opinion within the organisation and to sanitise every report before it is published.
One of the documents that the Minister, in response to parliamentary questions, refused to give me earlier this year was the report of the operation and evaluations department of the World bank, entitled "Adjustment in Sub-Saharan Africa". It had a very different tone about the success of World bank adjustment policies. It said:
The results of this effort … in Africa, have been decidedly mixed.
Under macro-economic policies, investment fell in all but four countries out of the 36 that had adjustment policies
and less than half experienced higher real GDP growth.
Reform of public enterprise has been slow.
On the social impact of adjustment, the area where the World bank says that it has made most changes, the report concluded:
In five of the eight countries for which data were available, the social expenditure to GDP ratio fell with the onset of structural adjustment. In only one of these did social expenditure increase in the medium term.
There are very different views within the bank. I am sure that we will hear something later of the new moves by the World bank towards information and openness. I have to say that I am not encouraged, because instead of that report, what I got from the Minister was the official summary of it, produced by the World bank. None of the quotes that I have just given appear in the official, sanitised summary produced by the World bank. The tone of the summary is entirely different. There is a debate in the World bank about where adjustment goes from here. We do not know what position the Government are taking in the debate.
I could get the document, not from the Minister, who said that it was confidential, but from an American non-governmental organisation, which obtained it, as any US citizen could, under the US Freedom of Information Act. That is nonsense.
Let us turn to World bank projects. One area of concern has been the impact of major dams on the environment and the displacement of indigenous people. According to "The Ecologist", again using unpublished bank information, £1 in £7 of World bank expenditure is devoted to projects that displace people. It estimates that, in the next year alone, some 600,000 people—approximately the population of Guyana—will be resettled as a result of World bank projects, yet the bank's own assessments show that it cannot point to a single project where forcibly resettled communities have been fully rehabilitated in accordance with its own resettlement policies. In other words, those projects are creating poverty, not alleviating it.
The aim of cur aid programme is to help the poorest people in the countries, yet we have no proper accountability to show whether that is happening. All the evidence is that it is not.
Those brief examples highlight some fundamental problems of the accountability to Parliament of the UK's role in the bank. There is grossly inadequate financial scrutiny of the effectiveness and adherence to the stated aims of the aid programme; Parliament and its Members are denied information about the activities of the United Kingdom executive director, about projects and other loans, about policy debates and about management initiatives. As a result, Parliament is excluded from such debates.
Many other Government activities are not subject to effective scrutiny, so what is it about the World bank that makes it a topic of particular concern? The answer is that the bank is central to our relationship with the developing world. It dominates our bilateral aid programme. It must be appreciated that, when a country is under the tutelage of one of the bank's structural adjustment programmes, often in conjunction with an IMF programme, the programme and priorities of the bank determine the entire social, economic and often political context of development.
The bank is in the business not just of funding projects but of changing the style of government, determining the role of the state and the private sector, governing the external economic relations of the country and determining its macro-economic programmes. It is an enormously influential institution. Indeed, I think that it has a dominating influence on our own aid programme.
According to a parliamentary reply that I was given in July, 57 per cent. of the UK's bilateral aid programme goes to countries implementing IMF and World bank-supported adjustment programmes. If we add to that a fair estimate of the UK's contribution that goes to the same countries through the European Community, the figure rises to around 80 per cent. In other words, where this country is funding development programmes, the likelihood of their success or failure will be determined by the success or failure of the World bank's influence on the countries concerned.
In theory, adjustment programmes are the property of the sovereign borrowing Government; in practice, as the bank now openly admits, many Governments feel little or no sense of ownership of those programmes, which is why so many fail. The bank is a transmission belt for the priorities of northern Governments.
There is no serious intellectual argument against adjustment per se: any Government must adjust to changing external economic circumstances, just as this country must adjust to, for instance, a single market or the liberalisation of financial markets. The bank's role in all

this, however, is to require each developing country to respond to external pressures determined by northern priorities—determined by our reluctance to finance adequate debt relief on a debt that, certainly in sub-Saharan Africa, is increasingly owed to the bank itself and other international financial institutions.
The bank requires individual developing countries to respond to our reluctance to provide sufficient external finance for development. It requires individual countries to respond and to adjust to the reluctance of the north to tackle seriously the problem of export dumping by northern agriculture, while requiring the dismantling of developing-country tariff barriers. It requires those countries to respond to our failure to address in any serious way the fall in the earning power of commodity-dependent countries.
The bank is also now part of the north's agenda for good governance. This is, admittedly, a difficult issue, because the promotion of human rights, democracy and good government involves legitimate issues of foreign policy. The use of external economic pressure to achieve those aims is a tricky and unpredictable mechanism, particularly when that pressure is used without the consent or participation of the people of the ocuntry concerned. In many cases, far from promoting better government, the bank has reduced the local capacity to govern independently at all.
The bank influences regional policies around the developing world. By transmitting the north's preference for seeing developing countries compete individually in world markets, in sharp contrast to the way in which the north itself is forming regional blocs, the bank acts as an obstacle to regional co-operation and economic integration.
All those factors mean that the bank is now far more than simply a development institution. It is a major tool of northern economic and foreign policy around the rest of the world. It is for those reasons, as well as its narrower development success, that the accountability of the United Kingdom Government's role in the World bank should be given much greater prominence within the House and the Government should encourage the House to take that interest.
Having said all that, my list of proposals is modest. It is an agenda to which I hope that the Government could reasonably respond. I do not think that there is anything that I am putting forward that is not the practice in at least one of the other northern countries that are major shareholders of the World bank. These points would be a major improvement in the level of accountability of the operation of the bank.
I hope that the Minister will consider some further points. Could we have an annual report on the United Kingdom's role within the World bank and the other international financial institutions which would show, at least after the event, the voting record of our executive director on major issues and the instructions given to our executive director by the United Kingdom Government? It would record the policy initiatives taken by the United Kingdom executive director and the positions that he takes in response to policy initiatives from others.
Could we have a report that would establish the strategic aims of the United Kingdom within the World bank, to be achieved over time, and an evaluation of our success in so doing? Could we see an improvement in the scrutiny of our role in the World bank by the Overseas Development Administration and greater openness about


the projects that it examines and—this is more a matter for the House—an improvement in the scrutiny by the National Audit Office?
It would be helpful to see encouragement from the Government for the establishment of a system of regular scrutiny of our role in the World bank by the Select Committees. It would be helpful to have parliamentary statements and debates around key events, but particularly around the annual and semi-annual meetings of the bank.
Could we also have the release of technical documents, project documents and policy documents? As I have said, they can be obtained, but not through our Government. They illustrate the likely impact of major projects, the debates around structural adjustment loans and the debates about the bank's wider policies. The release of those documents would make informed debate about the bank a less furtive and more open process than it is today.
I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. I hope that I have put the importance of the World bank on the record. I believe that the proposals that I have put to the Minister are modest, but they would make an important contribution towards making the World bank a more effective institution.

Mr. Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) has done a great service to the House and to development in what I thought was an extremely comprehensive, well-informed and welcome speech. It was worthy of an hour other than this one. I am sure that it will be, rightly, widely read and studied.
In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend referred to non-governmental organisations such as Christian Aid. I know of its interest in our debate and in these matters and of its view on the accountability of the World bank in particular and other financial institutions, and about the fact that British taxpayers are entitled to know that debate takes place in this House on these important matters.
My hon. Friend almost made the relatively short speech that I am about to make somewhat redundant, because his speech was so beautifully well informed. He referred, for example, to the World bank's recent report, "Adjustment in Africa, Reforms, Results and the Road Ahead." It is interesting that on page 8 we have a public confession, which I welcome and which I hope that the Minister's views will reflect. It says:
Policies are not good—yet".
On something as important as that, we should be striving to get the policies right. Perhaps the best way to do that is to involve ourselves in the sort of accountability to which the main thrust of my hon. Friend's speech addressed itself.
A Foreign and Commonwealth Office report was published last week, the cover of which refers to the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office including Overseas Development Administration.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that shows how the ODA has been demoted in the Government's thinking to less than an arm of the Foreign Office. We certainly want to reassert the role that the noble Baroness Barbara Castle described at a meeting in the House a few weeks ago and which is crucial to genuine development.
The document will be well known to the Minister. It says that one of the main reasons for British aid is

to help poorer countries and their peoples improve their standard of living.
In the absence of the accountability that my hon. Friend rightly demands, those people are entitled to ask how far we have gone in achieving that objective. On page 9 of its report, the World bank says:
Nor is there much evidence that public spending within those sectors—health and education—is being relocated away from costly tertiary programmes and towards the basic services likely to reach the poor.
That was a refreshing, if unwelcome, comment. Even the bank admits that its funds essentially are not, as the objective suggests, reaching the poorest countries. I am sure that the Minister will share not only that objective but our disappointment.
Any discussion of the role of the World bank, the International Monetary Fund and accountability raises fundamental questions. I understand that 10 per cent. of aid spending goes to the World bank. In 1992–93, nearly 15 per cent. went to the World bank and the IMF. There should, therefore, be some transparency to our bilateral aid and our multilateral contribution, which might be obvious in other Departments but is not evident here.
I shall not extend the debate to Malaysia, which I am sure will come as a relief to the Minister.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I am not worried.

Mr. Clarke: The Minister should wait for the various reports to be published.
In the absence of accountability, there is clear evidence of projects that are environmentally undesirable or even anti-social. As my hon. Friend so rightly said, there is evidence of the displacement of indigenous populations. If our development policy is about anything, it is about recognising the needs of individual communities wherever they live and their right to have a say in the kind of community in which they live. I am sure that the Minister will not disagree with that view.
My hon. Friend and the various reports available to the House show that structural adjustment programmes, far from improving poverty, actually deepen it.
Last week, I and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) were privileged to visit Uganda, sponsored by Oxfam. Our visit was part of the all-party caucus on Africa. We saw that poverty is deepening in Uganda, but, in spite of its difficult recent history, it is seeking to respond to the demands of the World bank and the IMF. I admit that I would find it difficult to agree with some of the conditions being set, were I an elected Member of Parliament in Uganda and should such a Parliament exist. Uganda finds that the spirit of its approach is hardly being met by the World bank or the IMF.
The case for accountability has been well made. It has been said that there was a 150 per cent. increase in the failure rate of World bank projects since 1981. I do not know whether the figure is correct, but there have undoubtedly been some failures. I am not saying that all World bank projects have ended dismally, but such matters should be openly debated. Had there been an open debate on, for example, the Naramada project in India, I think my hon. Friend would agree that we should not have had to hear the well-informed comment that it was
flawed, that resettlement and rehabilitation of all those displaced … is not possible under prevailing circumstances and that


environmental impacts … have not been properly considered or properly addressed".
That is a profound comment and I hope that the bank will be modest enough to accept that it is not even in the bank's interests—although it is more important to consider those of the millions of people whom it seeks to serve—that such a situation should prevail where there is not the slightest attempt to justify pluralism or a democratic input into the discussion of projects that are crucial to specific communities.
As my hon. Friend said, local people are entitled to much more information than the World bank is willing to provide. He gave a most interesting account of how he, as an elected Member of Parliament, has tried to obtain information but finds it easier to telephone Washington than to place a question in the Table Office. That cannot be right, and he is 100 per cent. right to draw it to the House's attention and suggest that there should be a better way of providing information on such important matters. Without access to information, the participation that the World bank itself says is important becomes meaningless.
However inadequately, we recently discussed the World bank and the 10th International Development Association replenishment 'which led to much criticism from non-governmental organisations including, I think, Christian Aid, not least because £620 million, it must be conceded, is a sizeable amount. Again, we need more open, crisp and well-informed debate, based on all the information that is available to the bank and all that is in the public domain.
My hon. Friend acknowledged that the bank is undertaking poverty assessments, but they hardly go far enough. We need to be assured that the bank will act on the information provided, will genuinely consult and take on board the views of those who, like the people we met in Uganda, are involved daily in trying to solve some very serious problems.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition made a very important speech on these matters in Geneva just a few weeks ago, showing that although my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen has been able only to obtain a debate in the middle of the night, many people share his interest in this important subject. My right hon. and learned Friend said:
It would be sensible to establish a clear line of accountability for the World bank and the IMF.
That is certainly the undiluted position of the Labour party. Surely after 50 years there is a case for such accountability and for a review.
It is becoming clear that the House does not have enough time for debates of this kind. I do not know whether the Minister agrees, but it seems to me evident that the other place gives much more time to these matters. My hon. Friend will probably agree that in view of the huge importance of the issues, this is a matter for very considerable regret. Perhaps, as my hon. Friend suggested, the only scrutiny of the World bank, the IMF, IDA, and similar bodies is undertaken on their own initiative through, say, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs or some Committee dealing with statutory instruments. That is hardly enough. My hon. Friend made the compelling point—I hope that the Minister will find time to address himself to the specific issue—that even the Government seem to have very little influence over the executive director and his role in all this. I realise that we have lots of debates about quangos—hon. Members on both sides of

the House have views on these matters—but the role of such a person is crucial and the need for accountability well established.
As my hon. Friend said, the World bank is very reluctant to reveal documents and information. That is a matter for very considerable regret. It would certainly be churlish not to welcome the appeals commission and the new information disclosure procedure, but it hardly goes far enough in terms of the matters that hon. Members, especially those as well informed as my hon. Friend, would like to debate. The expressions "commercial confidentiality" and "politically sensitive" can be abused. Indeed, there is evidence that they are being abused. We want to see more openness. The absence of openness has led to some of the problems that we face.
I join my hon. Friend in saying that the House of Commons is entitled to know what is going on in these international banking organisation to which, as shareholders, we have a contribution to make. We are entitled to know what pressure the ODA has exerted on the World bank genuinely to help the poorest people in the poorest countries. As my hon. Friend has said, we are entitled to know how Her Majesty's Government's representative on the board votes. We are entitled to know whether the Government consider that taxpayers' money is being spent really effectively and that we are securing value for money. We are entitled to ask what efforts are being made to involve the non-governmental organisations which, as I have said, are very interested in this debate. They told me so throughout yesterday and during the week. We are entitled to know whether communities at every level have an opportunity to be involved, not just at the design stage of projects but at every stage in their development right through to implementation. Those are reasonable questions, which would inevitably arise if such affairs were given the kind of scrutiny that rightly applies to other Departments of Government, national and international.
My hon. Friend concluded by asking for an annual report to Parliament. In that request, he was absolutely right. We are entitled to know about investment, development and the environmental and social consequences of World bank and IMF decisions. If my hon. Friend's debate, and his excellent initiative in drawing such matters to the attention of the House, means that at least the Government are invited to focus on those important, democratic and compelling issues, my hon. Friend can again congratulate himself on the excellent service that he has done in connection with those crucial issues.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I am sure that it is appropriate for me to congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) on his contribution. The subject of the debate is certainly one in which he has made himself a considerable expert. He may not appreciate the fact until I tell him, but he has in great measure been responsible for my understanding of the subject—I do not claim that it is as great as his—not because he has been my tutor, but because he has tabled many parliamentary questions that I have had to answer, and the answers have briefing attached to them that I have to try to understand.
On 8 February last year, the hon. Gentleman tabled a question, and I suggested in my answer that he initiate a


debate on the subject in the House. That has taken him only a year; perhaps in some measure the debate tonight is taking place because of that answer.
This year is the 50th anniversary of the World bank, so it is appropriate that we should now review its affairs. Even if the whole of our nation is not listening to the debate at this moment, I know that what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) have said will be carefully scrutinised, and I hope that it will have some effect in the direction of which they spoke.
Before I start the main part of my speech, I must alert the hon. Member for Itchen that the main tenor of my remarks will be to pick up a theme that the hon. Member for Monklands, West emphasised. He welcomed a public confession that he had read on page 8 of a report that he had brought to the House. I shall tell the House that we should recognise that there has been an improvement in self-examination by the World bank, and a considerable improvement in the conduct of its affairs.
The World bank is the largest single source of multilateral development assistance for developing countries. In recent years, it has begun to assist countries in transition in the former Soviet Union and in central and eastern Europe. As hon. Members have pointed out, a £620 million contribution is a great deal of money. That alone is certainly a good reason why we should debate the subject tonight.
The World bank group consists of four main entities: the bank itself, the International Development Association or IDA, the International Finance Corporation or IFC and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency or MIGA. The bank is the institution which makes loans to member countries on terms related to its own cost of borrowing on international capital markets. The IDA provides the soft loans on highly concessional terms to the poorest countries, which are generally unable to service debts on the harder bank terms. The IFC promotes private sector development by investing in private sector entities in developing countries and economies in transition. The MIGA also aims to promote private sector growth by insuring foreign investors against losses that might arise from political risks.
Tonight, we are speaking principally of the development role. The World bank plays a key role in the development process. Its central objectives are poverty reduction, economic reform and sustainable development—aims which complement and are mutually supportive of the priority objectives of the British aid programme. The bank has, therefore, always received strong support from the United Kingdom.
The bank has an important leadership role in policy dialogue with developing countries and in promoting economic reform measures. It has also responded swiftly to the major challenges of assisting the countries of central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in their transition to market-based economies. In the year ended June 1993, new lending reached a record of almost $24 billion and membership rose to a total of 176 countries.
I should like to say a word or two about how the structure of decision making in the World bank is organised. It operates under the authority of a board of governors and each member country is represented by a governor. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor

of the Exchequer is the governor for the United Kingdom, assisted by the alternate governor, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. The board of governors delegates authority on most matters to a board of executive directors which is based full time at the bank's headquarters in Washington. The board of directors is responsible for decisions on policies affecting the bank's operations and for approval of all lending proposals.
The hon. Member for Itchen has referred to the executive directors. As he said, the board consists of 22. The five members having the largest number of shares in the bank, of which the United Kingdom is one, have the right to appoint their own executive director. The rest are elected by the governors representing the other member countries. The World bank's president is chairman of the board and is responsible for the management and day-to-day operations of the bank.
I should also say something about our executive director. The United Kingdom is represented at the World bank and the International Monetary Fund by one executive director, who is a senior Treasury official appointed by the Government. He is supported by an alternate executive director for each institution and by a team of technical assistants. Something has been made by the hon. Member for Itchen of a conflict of loyalty under which this gentleman must operate—a conflict between his loyalty to the British Government and his loyalty to the institution where he works. The director and his team take instructions from, liaise closely with, and report fully to Whitehall Departments on bank policies and lending proposals. Our executive director is accountable to the Government for his actions. The Government likewise are accountable to Parliament for payments made to the bank as part of our aid programme. The hon. Member will know that my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development takes a close personal interest in the bank's activities and will certainly read and note the contributions that have been made tonight.

Mr. Denham: I thank the Minister for that statement. Does he agree that, in practice, one of the difficulties for those of us who want to follow our role in the bank is that it is very difficult to know when, in the consideration of a project or a structural adjustment loan, the executive director and the small staff—I believe that it is only six people in Washington—work independently, without reference to the United Kingdom Government, and when the executive director refers back here to Whitehall? Clearly, it happens in some cases and not in others. Whatever the constitutional position, I would argue that the role of the executive director is very different when he is simply acting with his Washington team and World bank staff and when he feels it necessary to seek guidance from here. Does the Minister agree that if we knew when the executive director was seeking the British Government's advice, and if we knew what advice the Government were giving him, it would be a helpful illumination of the process?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: When the executive director operates, he is answerable to, and under the control of, the Government, but there are occasions when he must act on his own initiative because matters are not of such moment that they must be reported to the Government. That would certainly be the case. However, the hon. Gentleman is


entitled to table questions and we will answer them. I cannot do more than that. That is the only way in which I can give him the information that he wants.
I must say something about the instructions that we give to our director and our position on the board. I shall repeat, and perhaps clarify, what I have said before. As the hon. Gentleman would expect, under the rules of procedure, board proceedings are confidential. There is no consensus within the board to change those arrangements. Therefore, that places limits on what we can say about the position of our executive director in board discussions of individual project proposals and policies. We abide by the rules that have been set. We do not impose on ourselves a greater burden than has been agreed. If others bend the rules or do not follow them as closely as we do, we do not regard that as a reason for breaking the rules but as a reason for pressing to have the rules changed. I shall make some remarks later about the Government's policy on disclosure.
The bank's board aims to operate on the basis of consensus. Formal votes are rare. Our executive director works closely with fellow directors and management to achieve this. Decisions, once reached, are collective decisions of the board. Certain matters covered in board documents or discussions are, and must be, sensitive. The important point that all hon. Members must accept—it is a matter of reasonable logic—is that a balance has to be struck between openness and the need to preserve the integrity of the bank's decision-making processes. Within those constraints, however, we have encouraged the bank to be more open and transparent about its operations. I shall outline some of the measures that the bank has taken in that regard in a moment.
The hon. Member for Itchen referred specifically to scrutiny of bank spending. There are opportunities for scrutiny. Parliament approves our contributions to the International Development Association every three years and capital subscriptions to the bank and the International Finance Corporation. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee scrutinises the Overseas Development Administration's budget annually. There are general debates on aid. A plethora of parliamentary questions are tabled by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. In my experience, parliamentary questions are effective tools of scrutiny available to Members of Parliament. They lead civil servants and Ministers to come together and make decisions on matters of concern to hon. Members. That is my experience as a Minister.
The hon. Member for Itchen raised the Oxfam criticisms of the report on the adjustment for Africa. Oxfam has criticised adjustment efforts in Africa, but it has not made clear what alternative approach it proposes. We are convinced that good economic policies are essential to lay the foundations for growth and poverty reduction. The operations evaluation department study on adjustment in Africa complements the recent bank report. The record is mixed, but strong adjustment pays off and the bank's latest report emphasises that there is a long way to go, even for good reformers.
The full operations evaluation department report is confidential, but we made available to the hon. Gentleman a summary of the study that the bank published. It is wrong to suspect that summaries hide essential matters on which criticism could be made. Publishing summaries is not a business of whitewashing. It is a business of keeping confidential that which has to be kept confidential.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister has been uncharacteristically unfair to Oxfam. If he reads the papers that it has made available on adjustment, and the views of the House all-party caucus on Africa, which is an effective body, he will see that positive suggestions to improve accountability have been made, not least by Oxfam, and those suggestions have been endorsed by hon. Members of all political parties, including the Minister's party.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but I must make some progress now as I have only 17 minutes left and quite a bit of ground to cover.
I want to say something about the measures that the bank has taken to be more open and transparent. Let us consider the bank's environmental performance. There has been much criticism today about the adverse impact of some of the bank's actions in that sphere. Some of those criticisms are well founded; others are misplaced.
The bank would be the first to admit that its performance on environmental issues has been mixed, but we believe that its approach has improved over time as lessons have been learnt. We are all still learning about the complex economic and social pressures and linkages that lead to environmental degradation. In many ways, the bank has been at the forefront in devising policies to take account of environmental concerns in its operations.
The bank has produced operational guidelines on environmental assessments, involuntary resettlement and protection of indigenous peoples. Those guidelines are currently being revised—not, as some critics allege, to dilute them, but to make clearer which provisions are mandatory and which elements reflect best practice. The aim is to make the operational guidelines a more effective management tool. Environmental screening of projects is routinely carried out, and environmental assessments are undertaken where necessary at an early stage in project design. The bank's guidelines require that affected groups and local non-governmental organisations be consulted.
In 1992, the bank carried out a frank and self-critical review of why the success rate of bank-funded projects had been declining over the past decade. The hon. Member for Itchen referred to the Wapenhans report. It found that among the factors explaining the deterioration in performance were the difficult economic environment faced by many borrowers in the late 1980s—oil price rises, high interest rates and the debt crisis—and the worsening domestic conditions in many developing countries. But the team noted that aspects of bank performance also played a part. There was undue emphasis on new loan commitments and inadequate attention to supervision of continuing projects. That was part of the self-examination, for which we must give the bank credit.
The hon. Member for Itchen mentioned the investigation of bank projects by the Overseas Development Administration. He is right to say that the ODA should not double guess all activities undertaken by the bank.

Mr. Tom Clarke: rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall give way once more, and then I must make progress.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I am grateful to the Minister, but he will appreciate that we do not often have the opportunity to have exchanges on such matters. He was generous to the World bank, both about consultations and about taking on


board the views expressed in them but last week, when the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and I, together with others from Oxfam, were in Uganda we met the World bank representative. I am sorry to have to say this in his absence, and when he does not have the right of reply, but the representative clearly gave the impression—which all of us shared—that he regarded our meeting as a bit of a waste of time. What he did with his time for the rest of the day and the rest of the week, I do not know, but he hardly gave the impression that he regarded the views of the community—which has been devastated by AIDS and has a problem in protecting its water—as terribly important.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No doubt the representative will read the reports of the debate, but I cannot give way any more because in the last 12 minutes that I have left I must pursue some other matters.
It is right that the ODA should not double guess all the activities undertaken by the bank. The emphasis must be on ensuring that systems and procedures are in place. Development always entails risks, so it is obvious that not all projects will succeed, but the Wapenhans report has made definite recommendations for improving project quality.
The hon. Gentleman asked me for a specific undertaking to disclose evaluations made by the ODA. I hope that I can give him some comfort because I thought that I had already given him that undertaking last November, when I said in reply to a question:
The ODA has produced a number of evaluations which we have co-financed with the bank. Details of how reports or summaries can be obtained are set out in the ODA' s catalogue of evaluation studies, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House."—[Official Report, 29 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 310.]
The answer to his question is yes, and I had already given him the undertaking that he sought. Now I must proceed.
After extensive discussions, the bank's board endorsed an action plan on the Wapenhans report last July to strengthen management of the bank's portfolio. That places greater emphasis on supervision and evaluation of loans, better project design, and changes in the bank staff's skills mix and incentives structure. We considered the action plan a comprehensive response to the report's finding—a positive reaction. We were impressed by the determination with which bank management followed up those issues. We also welcomed the fact that the bank publicised the findings of the task force as well as the measures being taken in response to its recommendations. We shall monitor the follow-up and implementation of that action plan closely.
We also welcome the further measures that the board adopted last year to make the bank's operations more open and transparent. In August, the bank's board of directors approved measures substantially to increase the amount of information publicly available about the bank's operations. The main features are a new project information document to provide factual information about all projects in the pipeline, the release of project appraisal reports after the board's approval of projects, the routine release of country economic reports and environmental assessments, and publication of sector policy papers and evaluation summaries. A public information centre has been set up at headquarters to process requests for information. The

bank's London office is one of several regional offices which will distribute material and it has an on-line link to Washington for immediate access to information and to facilitate the processing of requests for information.
Those measures should help to improve understanding of the bank's role. The new policy should also encourage more dialogue and interaction between bank staff and interested outsiders, including NGOs and local groups, and thus help to strengthen the quality and effectiveness of projects that the bank finances. We certainly want that to happen and that is an undertaking which I can give.
The board has already taken steps to set up an independent inspection panel, which will examine allegations of failure to adhere to bank policies under bank-funded projects. The results of all investigations will be made public and an annual report will be published detailing investigations undertaken. We hope that the panel will prove a useful addition to the existing systems of control provided through the board of directors and by management. Those measures should greatly increase the transparency of the bank's operation.
The measures that the bank management and its shareholders have introduced in the past two years are already having an impact on the way in which the bank operates. Two examples may serve to illustrate that—the bank's review of resettlement policy and the consideration currently being given to a proposed project for the construction of a dam in Nepal. I will say something about the first—the Narmada valley project, to which the hon. Member for Monklands, West referred.
In response to criticisms in 1992, the management initiated a bank-wide review of all projects involving involuntary resettlement of population. We strongly supported the bank's decision to set up that review and we are pleased that it has invited contributions from informed NGOs and others outside the bank. We have also encouraged bank staff to share the review's findings and recommendations with the people who have contributed to the review, before the report goes to the board, which may be within the next couple of months or so. Management are considering our suggestion. In the meantime, the bank has published information outlining the purpose and scope of the review and some of its preliminary findings.
With regard to the Arun-3 dam in Nepal. The process that the bank is following in its appraisal of this project also illustrates a rather more interactive approach. The bank began appraising the project last May and has had meetings with local and international NGOs to hear their concerns about its potential environmental and social impact. It has undertaken to disseminate updated information to NGOs and other interested parties once the appraisal is completed so as to facilitate informed discussion of the options. We have encouraged the bank to ensure that there is a full dialogue on the issues before the project is submitted to the board for approval. I hope that that shows the hon. Members for Itchen and for Monklands, West that things are changing and improving in the World bank.
It is as well to have comments about these matters at this stage because this is the 50th anniversary of the bank and the IMF. It is an important opportunity for shareholders to step back and to reflect on its current and future role, and how it should adapt to the challenges ahead. One of the bank's great strengths is its capacity to adapt. The action that it has taken in recent years shows that it listens and that it is prepared to be responsive to constructive criticism


about its role. As a major shareholder, we will continue to support measures that will enhance the effectiveness of all its operations.

Orders of the Day — Fenchurch Street Station

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I begin the debate which I have initiated on the impact on the commuters of the closure of Fenchurch Street station and Limehouse station for seven weeks this summer by apologising to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House, its servants and its officers for detaining them at this unearthly hour. I extend that apology to the Minister and to his colleague, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), who, on a personal level, are always courteous. Nevertheless, I shall not hesitate to criticise the Government and their stewardship of our railway network as it affects east London and Essex, despite the fact that the Minister has always been courteous and helpful to me about constituency matters.
The fact that Back-Benchers have to raise important issues at ridiculous hours of the day and night reflects the imbalance of the way in which we do things in this House. Before I depart from the House, my ambition is that the balance between Government business and BackBenchers' debates will have been altered. Government business should be held in the middle of the night and Back-Benchers' initiatives should be held during the day. I have already been in the Palace for 21 hours, working on parliamentary business. It is absurd that we hold these debate so late when the Minister, like me, has a full diary for the day ahead.
Having got that point off my chest, I state clearly that I do not question the urgent need for the resignalling works on the line that goes from Fenchurch Street to Southend, via my constituency of Thurrock and the constituency of Basildon; nor do I minimise the urgent need for Fenchurch Street station and other stations along that line to be refurbished and for the track to be renewed. Indeed, that work is long overdue, but I question whether, to complete those works, it is necessary to close Fenchurch Street and Limehouse stations for seven weeks from 22 July. Had the Government and managers of Network SouthEast been alive to the decay of the London-Tilbury-Southend and Great Eastern lines and their stations, those closures would not have been necessary. They are a direct consequence of years of neglect and indifference by the Secretary of State and his predecessors under this Administration.
My constituents will suffer enormous additional delay and inconvenience as a result of that neglect. The impact will be quite awful for the thousands of commuters who travel from East Tilbury, Tilbury, Grays and, to a lesser extent, South Ockendon stations. They would wish me to place on record their considerable irritation at the inconvenience that they face this summer. The problem is not exclusive to my constituency but will affect thousands of commuters from Essex and east London, Southend, Shoeburyness, Basildon, Pitsea, Upminster, Dagenham Dock and particularly Barking. Some 19,000 commuters a day use Barking station and there is already considerable congestion and problems for commuters interlining from that station on their way to work in London.
When Fenchurch Street and Limehouse stations close this summer, Network SouthEast intends that the bulk of commuters travelling from Essex will disembark at Barking and join the already heavily used, if not overloaded, District and Metropolitan underground lines from Barking. Commuters who normally interline with the


docklands light railway at Limehouse station will have an additional problem to get to their place of work in the new docklands development area.
The closures will affect not only travellers to Barking but commuters living in Barking. Had my late colleague Jo Richardson still been with us, I am sure that she would have participated in this debate because of the enormous impact that the closure of Fenchurch Street station will have on the Barking and Dagenham constituents. I regret that no other hon. Members whose constituents will be affected by the closures are in the Chamber. In fairness, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) is indisposed. He takes a keen interest in transport matters, having been a former Transport Secretary, and is also my chairman on the Transport Select Committee. I am sure that, had it been possible, he would have been here tonight. The inescapable fact remains, however, that there are Essex Conservative Members who should have been here tonight to speak up for their commuters, who will be greatly disadvantaged by the closures.
I have been a consistent and unashamed critic, not just of the Government and their transport policy, but of the managers of Network SouthEast, who do not respond as they should to the interests of commuters. They make cosmetic efforts to recognise those interests, but I am not satisfied that they properly champion consumers' interests in their dealings with the Government. Were they to fulfil the spirit of their duties as line managers they would join me in criticising the Government for their chronic underfunding of the lines, which in turn has led to the chaos of one of London's oldest mainline stations being closed for seven weeks in the summer.
The managers make some attempt to acknowledge the interests of commuters. Just this morning, they issued commuters with a glossy brochure entitled, "LTS Newsline: Customer Newsletter". The banner headline reads:
Station to shut for seven weeks".
The second page of the document is headed:
LTS moves towards shadow franchise".
It goes on:
The senior management team headed by Chris KinchinSmith, divisional director of LTS, has already expressed its initial willingness to mount a bid for the line, providing the terms of the franchise are acceptable.
I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that during the tortuous debates on rail privatisation, in the House and in the Select Committee, we were assured both by the Minister and by the chairman of British Rail that line managers who might be contemplating putting in a bid for a franchise should keep that interest separate from their operational role. Mr. Kinchin-Smith and his colleagues, in a document paid for by commuters through their fares, are flagging up an interest in bidding for a franchise—that clearly runs contrary to the spirit of those undertakings. I hope that the Minister will accept that, and that his Department will tick off people who are mixing up their responsibilities in this way.
Another sign that the legitimate interests of commuters are being ignored is the lack of facilities for the travelling public. The document also tells commuters that no toilets will be available for their use at Barking station, the main inter-line station, which is due to accommodate a great many more travellers this summer. That is symptomatic of

the decay of the line and its understaffing by Network SouthEast and it is wholly unacceptable. It is not unreasonable to say that the line and its passengers must be properly looked after. It is a very bad state of affairs if they cannot provide WCs for commuters.
I move to the central issue of the debate—the closure of the Fenchurch Street main line station. Mr. Chris Kinchin-Smith says:
We know this work will cause severe disruption for many of our customers".
My word, he can say that again; it is the understatement of the year. He then argues that the temporary closure of Fenchurch Street station is essential.
As I have said, I have no way of testing whether it is essential or unavoidable now, but it could have been avoided had there been proper funding and planning of the refurbishment and restoration of the line in previous years. The Government and the line management failed to acknowledge that, despite the fact that I and other Labour Members have been drawing attention to the problems of the misery line for a number of years.
The management's document says that the station will be closed when many passengers take their holiday. That is very kind of them, but the fact that the work will be carried out in July or August will not greatly reduce the irritation to customers. We are not a town that has a "holiday week". Thurrock does not close down and nor does Essex. In the south-east of England, in modern times, holidays straddle the summer months. It is of no great consolation to us that the work will be conducted in the summer and it is nonsense to suggest that that is any great concession to the fare-paying customers.
In their document, the managers of network SouthEast also say:
We are working closely with London Underground".
I am not sure that that is so. Dear old London Underground has been told there about the closure of Fenchurch Street and Limehouse station and has to live with it.
In the past 24 hours, I have corresponded with the senior public affairs executive of London Underground. She replied:
The eastern section of the District Line is currently operating the optimum level of service possible and therefore additional trains can not be provided by the line
— that is the District line—
during the 7 week closure period.".
The management of London Underground are in no position significantly to abate the problems of commuters from Essex; nor can they do anything to affect the impact on the existing underground customers who will also suffer through increased congestion on already overcrowded underground trains.
I also criticise the management because their glossy and expensive document does not give much time or attention to the problems that will be faced exclusively by my constituents on the Tilbury loop line. The section headed, "Your Questions Answered", contains hardly any reference to mitigating the problems for my constituents, apart from telling us that present proposals include the Tilbury line and that all stopping services will terminate at Barking with onward travel by tube. It then gives us the good news that LTS tickets will be valid on the underground.
I have been fighting a continuing battle with Network SouthEast about its penalty fares scheme and how it relates to the closure of Fenchurch Street. I support the principle of the penalty fare scheme, but the management of


Network SouthEast on the London-Tilbury-Southend line have been unable to maintain the ticket machines so that honest fare-paying passengers can purchase a ticket and avoid the embarrassment of having to defend their position when an inspector gets on the train. It is a wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs when, night after night on the main concourse of Fenchurch Street station, it is impossible, unless one has the exact fare, to purchase a ticket for use on that line. If Fenchurch Street station is to be refurbished, I hope that the management are able to get their act together. Apparently the machines there are supposed to be self-replenishing in change, but they do not self-replenish and the management seem incapable of arranging for people to empty them and fill them up with change.
The situation gets worse. If more people have to change at Barking on to London Underground, which is also introducing a penalty fares scheme from the beginning of this financial year, it makes it even more imperative that passengers are able to purchase a ticket or permit to travel at stations in Essex. I hope that the Minister will take that on board and ensure that the management of London Underground and Network SouthEast understand that that is a reasonable expectation and demand by the commuters in view of the penalty fares policy.
I want to ask the Minister some questions. First, what compensation will commuters who are disadvantaged by the lengthy closure of Fenchurch Street station receive? They do not have a good service at the present time. Despite what the management say, the journeys are still erratic in terms of punctuality. Their problems will be compounded. I guess that the vast majority of commuters from Essex will have each day an additional three quarters of an hour travelling time, at least, to their place of work in London as a result of the closure. That is not fair when one bears in mind that commuters from Southend, if travelling only on the LTS line, pay £1,912 per annum for their season ticket. If they are travelling LTS and Great Eastern, the season ticket costs £2,056 per annum. In my constituency, commuters from Tilbury pay £1,564 per annum. At that price, bearing in mind the problems that they will experience this summer, they are entitled to a rebate. I hope that the Minister will consider that matter and make the appropriate recommendation to the management of Network SouthEast.
Secondly, is the Minister able to give me an assurance that when the work is complete following the closure of Fenchurch Street and Limehouse stations, there will be no further hiatus for commuters from Essex? I ask that because I have no confidence about the frankness of the management of Network SouthEast. For example, they did not mention the possibility of this closure until it was almost unavoidable. They must have known about it a year or two ago, but they did not tell us. I have a deep suspicion that there will be further closures of stations along the LTS line in the coming months or perhaps the next two years. If I am wrong, I would welcome that correction and reassurance from the Minister.
Thirdly, after significant sums of public money have been spent on refurbishing the LTS line and Fenchurch Street station, will the station be fully used to the advantage of the Essex commuters? Each evening, commuters wanting to get back to Essex are faced with the absurd irritation of having to look at the clock and decide whether to head for Fenchurch Street station or Liverpool

Street station. About halfway through the evening, Fenchurch Street is closed and those travelling to Essex must use Liverpool Street.
Fenchurch Street is a mainline station. It services my constituents on the Tilbury loop, and many others who want to get to towns between London and Southend. I do not think it unreasonable to expect those people to be able to board a train at Fenchurch Street throughout the evening. I hope that, following the expenditure on Fenchurch street, that problem will be remedied and a proper service will be restored.
Although I have tempered my remarks, I hope that the Minister will understand why I legitimately accuse the Government of neglecting the line. They are, to a large extent, to blame for the problems that will be experienced this summer by my constituents and by people living throughout Essex and in east London. Some of the blame must lie with the management of Network SouthEast but, putting that aside, I hope that the Minister will tell us that he will have a further meeting with the management to establish whether the work can be completed without closing the station.
I feel that, although it might be inconvenient and involve some additional cost to Network SouthEast, the work could be completed in the middle of the night and over a series of weekends. It might take a good deal longer, but the disadvantage to computers would be a good deal less. I suspect that a seven-week closure of Fenchurch Street station is the easy way out for the management, rather than being truly unavoidable. I hope that the Minister will investigate that.
I also hope that the Minister will establish whether it will be possible to increase capacity on London Underground during the closure of Fenchurch Street—assuming that it goes ahead—and that he will ensure that passengers can purchase tickets from properly maintained machines, both on that line and throughout the Network SouthEast area. That is not happening now. Finally, I hope that commuters will be told about any other anticipated problems months, if not years, in advance, rather than those problems' being sprung on them with the minimum notice.
I expect the Minister to say that Network SouthEast has consulted local Members of Parliament, because that is what Network SouthEast told me today. It is true that Mr. Kinchin-Smith has invited me to meet him, and I look forward to arranging a mutually convenient date. What he has never done, however, is write to me, as a Member of Parliament, saying, "We have a problem: we are going to have to close Fenchurch Street station, which will affect your commuters." All I got was a press release, some weeks weeks ago—not even a letter. I do not protest about that discourtesy on my own behalf, but I am protesting on behalf of my constituents and other commuters from Essex. It shows the way in which the management of the line treat their customers.
I hope that we will receive some reassurance from the Minister and that, as a consequence, the enormous chaos will be avoided for commuters this summer.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was courteous in apologising for the hour of the debate. That was kind of him, but there was no need to


apologise. Ministers are never inconvenienced at coming to the House to answer a debate at any time. The hon. Member was courteous to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the Officers of the House for keeping them up till this early hour. I should be happy to come at any hour because it is the responsibility of the Government and Ministers to answer legitimate concerns raised by Back Benchers.
Those who listen to our debates on the radio must wonder why three or even four times a year we have an all-night debate. It is one of the rare opportunities for Back-Bench Members to debate for longer than the normal half-hour Adjournment debate issues of relevance to their constituencies. It is a good use of Parliament's time. It brings the Government properly to account and allows issues to be properly explored. I would rue the day that these proceedings were in any way curtailed or changed. They provide a valuable opportunity for Back-Bench Members such as the hon. Member for Thurrock to raise various issues.
The hon. Member referred to the late Jo Richardson. This is the first opportunity that I have had to pay my tribute to her. When I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in the Ministry of Defence, I had many occasions to talk to the late Jo Richardson because she was my Minister's pair. I always had courteous and friendly relations with her. We will long remember her contribution to the House.
The hon. Member for Thurrock referred to several of my colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess), for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) have all been consistent in raising concerns about the London-Tilbury and Southend line on behalf of their constituents. They have been very assiduous. The fact that they are not in the Chamber now is no reflection upon their zeal, which is shared by the hon. Member for Thurrock, in looking after the interests of their constituents.
As many hon. Members will know, the London, Tilbury and Southend line is one of the undoubted rail success stories of recent years. The hon. Member for Thurrock referred to its performance as erratic. I would have shared that view if he had been referring to two or three years ago. I do not believe that that is a fair description of the service now. I have travelled on the line on a number of occasions during the past four years and I have spent a great deal of time talking to commuters about the quality of service on the line.
From those visits, one thing above all is clear—the London, Tilbury and Southend line is no longer the misery line of the late 1980s. The figures show that it is now one of the best performing commuter lines in the south-east. On average, over the past 12 months, 92 per cent. of LTS peak services have arrived at their destination within five minutes of the advertised time. Given the acknowledged poor punctuality and reliability of a just a few years ago, that represents a real turnaround.
It is important to remember that no new equipment has been available to the line over that period. The improvement is the result of the efforts of LTS management and staff and shows what can be achieved when there is a shared determination to provide a better

service to passengers. I pay tribute to Mr. Kinchin-Smith, his predecessors and all British Rail staff, from the most senior to the most junior, for the tremendous improvement in the quality of service brought about over the past 12 months. It is a great credit to them. They have been successful without the completion of resignalling, without the delivery of new rolling stock and with the difficulties of running a 19th century railway line.
Further improvements are on the way. I said that the LTS has had no new equipment recently, but that is now about to change. The line is undergoing a major resignalling programme costing £83 million, which involves replacing equipment installed in the 1960s. The present 16 signal boxes are being replaced by a single state-of-the-art control centre at Upminster and the power supply is being upgraded and junctions improved.
Improvements on that scale cannot be made without some inconvenience to passengers, although British Rail has shown that disruption can be minimised by careful planning and consultation with rail users. Hon. Members may know that Charing Cross and Waterloo East stations were closed for three weeks last summer to allow essential work to be carried out so that the new 12-car Networker trains could be accommodated there. During that period, trains were diverted into Cannon Street and Victoria. By the careful timing of the work during the peak holiday season, when passenger numbers are at their lowest, and by warning passengers well in advance—the closure was first advertised more than a year beforehand and frequently thereafter—British Rail ensured that inconvenience was kept to an absolute minimum. It sensibly employed the media, including advertisements in local newspapers, to ensure the widest possible dissemination of information. The result was that many of those who were affected were impressed by the sensible and professional way in which the necessary closures were handled. No doubt some who were able to do so, knowing the details of the work so far in advance, arranged their holidays to avoid the closures.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am not surprised that the Minister and Network SouthEast pray in aid the closures on the old Southern region last year, but the right hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. Alternatives were offered during those closures, but the position that we are debating is not comparable. There will be major inconvenience to my commuters, whereas there was some irritation for people on the old Southern region railway, some of which they could overcome with relatively minimal delay.

Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress, I will deal specifically with his point, which I understand.
I have been describing the procedures followed by British Rail in relation to closures involving Charing Cross and Waterloo East stations. They are what passengers should be able to expect when improvements on this scale are carried out. Management on the LTS intend to ensure that their passengers are equally well treated when Fenchurch Street station is closed for seven weeks. The LTS has produced a code of practice on how the resignalling project will be carried out. It has been endorsed by the Southend rail travellers association and supported by other statutory and voluntary representative bodies. It is also publishing a regular newsletter, "LTS


Newsline", from which the hon. Gentleman quoted, which is keeping passengers fully up to date on progress and service alterations.
As with the closure of Charing Cross and Waterloo East, information will be disseminated via local press and radio. LTS commuters have the added advantage of the Pride system, the colour television monitors at each station which provide instant information.
The closure of Fenchurch Street for this period is unavoidable. The hon. Gentleman said that it could have been avoided if the Government had provided substantial funds at an early stage. That is not so. The station requires complete remodelling. Several miles of track and overhead power lines need to be replaced. The signal box currently just outside the station must be dismantled. All that work should take seven weeks. My information is that if it were carried out during the night and at the weekend, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, it would take three years, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would tolerate that for a moment on behalf of his constituents. All our experience of major rail infrastructure work shows that it is much better to concentrate the work into a short period. That inconvenience, which is regretted, is much better than spreading it over a substantial period.
While the station is closed, some LTS services will run into Liverpool Street and others will terminate at Barking where passengers will be able to transfer to London Underground's District line on which their tickets will be valid. In addition, bus services will be provided between LTS and Great Eastern stations that are in relative proximity. London Underground services from Upninster and Barking, where there are LTS interchanges, will be strengthened.
British Rail is in no doubt that the result of the project will be a great improvement in signal reliability which, it says, is the biggest single factor contributing to delays at the moment. There will be more crossovers which allow services to bypass failed trains or engineering works without causing serious disruption; better centralised control and co-ordination from the new centre at Upminster; and a more versatile and easily maintained terminus at Fenchurch Street.
When the important work is complete—British Rail hopes by next spring—the already much improved service should improve still further. I shall ensure that the hon. Member for Thurrock and all my hon. Friends who represent constituencies along the line are invited to the formal opening of the new service. More modern trains for the LTS service are due to become available in 1995–96 as a result of £150 million leasing facility that the Government announced in 1992.
The LTS line will be one of the first to be franchised under the Railways Act 1993. The Government believe that the improved performance of the past few years will be pursued even more vigorously when the LTS is an independent company competing for business in the market and subject to the rewards and penalties of the proposed franchise system. With new signalling, more modern trains and, most important, a real incentive and desire to meet the needs of its users, the LTS will be in the vanguard of the move towards the new-style rail service that we all want.
The hon. Gentleman asked me four questions. I shall examine the matter of the ticket machines at Fenchurch Street and the rebates and I shall write to him. Those are perfectly valid matters to raise. He also asked whether there would be any further problems and said that he had deep suspicions about further closures. I am advised that, once the work is finished next spring, the infrastructure work will be complete for the foreseeable future and, with the arrival of new trains, the hon. Gentleman's constituents will not experience any significant disruption to services.
The hon. Gentleman also asked for an assurance that the station would be fully used. He complained about the closure of the station in the early evening. We hope that the line will be franchised next year and, with more capital, freedom and innovation, there may well be a change in the pattern of railway services. I share his view that it would be advantageous for the people of Essex if services were expanded. If that is possible, and if it makes economic sense, I should welcome it.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me to tick off Mr. Chris Kinchin-Smith, but I decline to do so. I am delighted that there is an interest in organising a management buy-out by Mr. Kinchin-Smith and his colleagues. Mr. John Welsby, the chief executive of British Rail, has just issued new guidelines to BR management on how they should discharge their responsibilities for running the railway services and prepare a bid. The hon. Gentleman may wish to know that I answered a parliamentary question, drawing attention to the fact that I had placed in the Library a copy of the guidelines that should resolve the problem of dual responsibility for management of the line and the preparation of the bid. Far from ticking off Mr. Kinchin-Smith, I congratulate him and his staff on the management of the line and on preparing to bid for the franchise.

Mr. Irvine Patnick (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Hartley Hospital, Colne

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Gordon Prentice: This debate is about national health service property and how it is disposed of. Since I applied for it, Hartley hospital, which is in my constituency, has been sold, after lying empty for five years. News of the sale came as a complete bombshell to me and, indeed, to everyone else in the constituency. Apparently, an offer has been made and has been accepted by the chairman of the North Western regional health authority, Sir Bruce Martin, who made the decision a few days ago, acting under delegated powers.
I am told that the buyers are a three-person partnership—presumably builders and developers—based in Simonstone, which is just outside my constituency. The regional health authority will not tell me any more than this as contracts have not been exchanged. I do not want contracts to be exchanged as I am totally opposed to the sale, as, indeed, is my local authority, Pendle borough council. In due course, I shall explain why.
I do not know how much the mystery buyers paid for Hartley hospital, and I do not know what they intend to do with it. But Mr. Richard Strickland, who deals with property matters for the regional health authority, hinted today that the main block of the hospital would be retained and converted into "quality private residential flats".
I want to say a few words about the background to the whole affair. Hartley hospital occupies a very special place in the affections of the people of Colne. There are two people who are famous benefactors of the town and are held in the highest regard. One is Peter Birtwistle, whose trust still benefits the residents of the town; the other is Sir William Pickles Hartley, made famous and wealthy by his jams. Sir William—Mr. Hartley, as he then was—was the driving force behind the new cottage hospital for Colne, which opened in 1900 to commemorate the diamond jubilee of Queen Victoria. He put up half the money required, with the people of Colne making up the difference.
But soon the hospital became too small for the town. Sir William and his wife, Lady Hartley, this time generously agreed to pay the entire cost of the new hospital, which opened its doors to patients in June 1924. It was given to the people of Colne in perpetuity, but transferred to the national health service as a result of the National Health Service Act 1946, free of the trust, and it continued to serve the needs of the people of Colne, Trawden, Foulridge and beyond until 1989, when it was closed for good.
In fact, there had been creeping closure before then, as various aspects of the hospital's work were progressively moved to other hospitals in the area. But the closure and the lead-up to it sparked a public outcry, and the town saw candlelight vigils, packed public meetings, petitions attracting thousands and thousands of signatures and, indeed, visits by Ministers. The current Leader of the House, who was then a junior health Minister, descended on the town, which was in great turmoil. The newspaper files of the period bulge with coverage of the closure, which was very extensive indeed.
I want to say a word about Dr. Tony Pickles—one of the many people in Colne who deserve special mention. He is

a councillor in the Waterside ward, and he was very active in the campaign to save the hospital. But his efforts and those of thousands like him could not prevent the closure.
Of course, time has moved on. We have seen the opening of the Pendle community hospital in Nelson, and we are all thankful for that new facility in the town next door to Colne. We have seen also the reorganisation of the health service and the creation of the new national health service trusts. But throughout this period of great change, upheaval and flux in the health service there was one constant: Hartley hospital was still there—boarded up, empty and, year after year, slowly and majestically decaying.
The regional health authority took over responsibility for the building and attempted to market the old hospital on three separate occasions, but with no success. On 13 September last year, I received a letter from the chairman of the regional health authority, Sir Bruce Martin, in response to an earlier letter of mine. He told me that planning consultants had been appointed with the aim of seeking a residential planning consent.
If one looks through the minutes of meetings way back into the 1980s, one discovers that that has been a recurring theme. Consultants were to be appointed to consider how the hospital could best be marketed. Sir Bruce told me that that action had not been taken before September 1993 because of the need
to demonstrate to the local planning authority that there was no suitable interest in the premises for use as a nursing home or similar institution".
Sir Bruce said that discussions were taking place between the planning consultants and the local authority
with a view to an outline planning application for housing being submitted shortly".
Months passed, and I was becoming increasingly concerned about how long the plans were taking to bear fruit. Following a further prompt from me, I received another letter from Sir Bruce dated 22 February—only three weeks ago—which said:
On the marketing of Hartley Hospital, the situation remains one of offers being received but which are either not at an acceptable level in valuation terms or the prospective purchaser has failed to secure the necessary finance … Consideration has been given to other ways of enhancing the marketability of the premises. One possible option under discussion is to submit an outline planning application for the redevelopment of the Hospital for residential purposes. No formal decision has however been taken.
That was three weeks ago.
The letter continues:
Although the Authority has no plans to demolish the Hospital, I would advise you that the cost of maintenance and security has risen by a further £23,300 since I last wrote to you on the matter in March 1993.
That is another aspect of the tale which needs highlighting. The cost of keeping the building safe and secure has been increasing every year—from £14,600 in 1993 to £37,900 earlier this year. Yet, despite that expenditure, the buildings were rotting away.
I have wandered round the old hospital several times, and it always amazes me that it has not been subject to more vandalism and theft. In December last year, my local authority felt obliged to write to the NHS management executive expressing concern about the lack of response from the regional health authority to concerns that the council had legitimately raised about the maintenance and security of the site and the buildings.
The old hospital has been boarded up for years, neglected and rotting away. Throughout that entire period,


no planning applications were submitted to the local authority; it was a period of indecision and vacillation, with nothing much happening. Then at the eleventh hour, just before I managed to secure an Adjournment debate, I was told that the hospital had been sold.
I shall say a few words about the planning context. Hartley hospital is set in attractive grounds and, as the House has heard, it has a special history. The stone building is also very attractive and in scale with its surroundings, and the local authority has a policy for the site which goes back many years.
The council's planning policy states that any redevelopment or conversion scheme for the former Hartley hospital should have due regard for the national green belt policy
since it is the Council's intention to include the site in a Green Belt".
The council's policy refers to the Department cif the Environment circular on redundant hospital sites in green belts, and it goes on to list the acceptable uses. These uses include agriculture or forestry-related uses, outdoor sport and recreation, or institutional use such as day care, nursing home, residential college and such like; but the local authority recognises that, should these uses not be practicable, the buildings could have a tourism or leisure use such as a conference centre or perhaps a youth hostel. Housing is in the list of uses that are specifically declared unacceptable, yet it has apparently been sold by the regional health authority for housing, which is in direct conflict with the council's draft local plan.
I want to know why a planning application was not submitted by the regional health authority to test what might or might not be acceptable to the planning authority. As I have shown, in September 1993 that was promised by Sir Bruce Martin, but six months passed and nothing very much happened.
The Department of Health publishes an estate code which is supposed to govern these matters. It is called "Property Transactions in the NHS". It looks at the disposal of surplus property and, in paragraph 4.2, under the heading "Consideration of optimum return", it says:
Where there are no alternative health service uses, Health Authorities must consider with their professional advisers how to achieve the optimum return from the property.
Paragraph 4.3 says:
To secure the best price possible, property which has potential for development should normally be sold with the benefit of planning permission. Health authorities or their agents must therefore establish the most favourable planning potential by making an application under the Town and Country Planning Act 1984 unless there are overriding reasons in terms of best marketing practice for not doing so and the District Valuer concurs.
I want to know why that was not done.
Advice paper 2 amplifies the advice from the Department of Health and discusses the options available for the disposal of surplus land and property. It says that
a critical phase of a disposal is that of obtaining the best planning consent and a full discussion with professional advisers and the DV must take place on the type of consent to be sought and any other material marketing considerations.
I asked Mr. Richard Strickland of the regional health authority earlier today why no planning application was submitted, and he referred me to an undertaking that had allegedly been made by the Minister for Health in the 1980s—presumably, the present Leader of the House—that every effort would be made to secure a health service

or allied health use. Mr. Strickland could not point me to where I might find evidence of this commitment, but he recalled its having been made. He also told me that the district valuer had approved the sale to the mystery buyers on the ground that the value of the site with existing use or with housing permission would be the same, something which I find difficult to grasp. If there were a housing development, Mr. Strickland said, it would not be a high-density one.
It seems to me that the regional health authority and the district valuer have made a lot of assumptions. Any planning application that the new buyer submits will have to be considered by the council, and the new buyer should not necessarily assume that planning permission will follow for any housing development. In one sense, the new buyers may be buying a pig in a poke because there is no outstanding planning permission for housing use.
The local planning authority will have to consider several matters. It will take into account its policy for a green-belt development, its own policy specifically for the development of the Hartley hospital site, and the Government guidelines. I am thinking of the 1991 guidelines on the use of redundant hospitals in green-belt areas. I believe that the Government are currently examining those guidelines and will shortly reissue them in a modified form. My contention is that what is acceptable and what is not acceptable can be tested only by submitting a planning application. The regional health authority did not do so, even though the guidance from the Department of Health specifically advises it to do so in order to obtain the best price.
My preference has always been for the hospital to be used as a hospice. However, one must be realistic. In the absence of such a proposal, I wanted to see it put to some community use. A proposal has been made for community use. An offer has been made by a Buddhist group, the Losang Dragpa centre. It has several established centres across the country. One is at Conishead priory, which was restored by the group in 1976. Another, at Kilnwich Percy hall in Pocklington, York, was opened in 1986. Another is in a former hotel in Buxton in Derbyshire. The group thinks that the old Hartley hospital would be a perfect setting for one of its centres.
The proposal has widespread all-party support locally. The local authority has looked at the application and supports it energetically. It will retain the buildings that Sir William gave to the people of Colne. It would allow some community use. The Buddhist group proposes that there will be some serviced residential accommodation. There will be a lecture theatre for residential courses. There will be quality overnight accommodation for tourists. There will be teaching facilities and evening classes. The centre will not be exclusive to Buddhists. Anyone, whether Buddhist or not, could use the centre.
The Losang Dragpa centre put in an offer last year of £245,000. It was apparently turned down. I have here a letter from the Buddhist group which tells me that it was shown round the hospital, it put in a bid and it was told by a Mr. Soloman of the estates department that the property was not on the market. I find that inexplicable because someone somewhere


looked at the proposal and decided to reject it. Presumably it was the chairman, Sir Bruce Martin, under the delegated powers to which I have referred.
An offer of £245,000 was put to the regional health authority by the Buddhist group. That proposal falls full square within the planning policy agreed by the local planning authority. It was rejected. A mystery buyer based in Simonstone has made an offer—I do not know for how much—which has apparently just been accepted by the regional health authority. That proposal falls directly outside the planning policy of the local authority. The people who have bought the hospital should not expect to obtain planning permission to redevelop it.
What is the charge? It is that the regional health authority has, throughout the saga, moved at a snail's pace. The lovely hospital was gifted to the people of Colne in my constituency; it has been boarded up for five years and has been slowly decaying while the regional health authority has been biting its finger nails wondering what to do with it.
The regional health authority has totally disregarded the planning context, and has sold the property to a buyer—although the contract has not yet been exchanged—who apparently intends to put it to housing use. That is directly contrary to the publicly expressed policies of the local planning authority. I want the Minister to consider the history and background to the affair to see whether he can satisfy himself that the regional health authority has acted properly, because I do not think that it has.
I shall urge Pendle borough council, the local planning authority, to stick to its guns and to insist that any development of Hartley hospital falls full square within its planning policies. For that hospital of all hospitals to be turned into luxury flats would be an insult to the memory of Sir William Hartley. The people of Colne deserve much better.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): In the short time that remains, I should like to make a few comments on the subject raised by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).
As the hon. Gentleman will know, there have been repeated efforts to sell Hartley hospital over a number of years. There has been a difficult property market in that area and, in common with many other districts, it has been difficult to sell property, whether commercial or domestic. The various offers and negotiations that have taken place over the years have not come to fruition, either because a buyer who made an offer was unable to come up with the finance or because offers were made that were unacceptably low.
The hon. Gentleman made a connection between the offer that has recently been accepted from a commercial concern and his successful application for a debate in the House. I have to disappoint him: there is no connection between those two matters. It could be said that the property market is recovering and we are fortunate that the regional health authority has apparently obtained an offer from a concern of good

standing. I hope that it will come to fruition because we do not want the Hartley hospital to be lying empty and decaying any longer.
We want the health service in the north-west to receive the proceeds of such a sale. In the past year or so, the region has been successful in disposing of property, and the proceeds of all such disposals go back into the health service.
Although the hon. Gentleman appeared to wish to take the credit for the latest transaction, he also said that he disapproved of the nature of the transaction because he believed that the property was to be used for an unsuitable purpose. Our remit in the NHS is to dispose of surplus property for the price, or as close to it, that professional advisers and the district valuer advise us is suitable. We are not in the planning business, which is for others. Our responsibility is to obtain a good price. I am advised that the offer that has been made is close to the asking price, although that is much lower than it was a few years ago—in common with commercial property everywhere. Therefore, I hope that the deal will go through, but it is for others to decide whether to allow any specific use to which the property is put or to which the new buyers wish to put it.
The hon. Member for Pendle mentioned other possible uses. Obviously it would be a very good thing if the hospice movement in the north-west could be further extended. I understand however, that no proposal was made by any voluntary or other organisation to use the Hartley hospital as a hospice. I opened a new hospice only yesterday in another part of the country and I am well aware of the wonderful work that hospices do, but, although I gather that the hospice movement may be seeking further hospices or day centres around the north-west, there is no specific proposal in the hon. Gentleman's area.
I am not aware of any prejudice by Sir Bruce Martin against Buddhists. I am sure that if that organisation had made an offer that was, according to the region's advisers and the district valuer, a good offer and at, or close to, the asking price, there would have been no problem in selling the property to the Buddhists. I think that that is, if not a red herring, simply a matter of commercial reality. We have to dispose of health service property at a proper price and we have not, in spite of repeated efforts in the past three years, received a suitable offer from a concern that appeared able to complete until now.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we want extra funds for the health service. We dispose of property in a way that provides extra funds for the health service and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me therefore—

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Before the Minister concludes, I wonder whether he would address the point that lies at the heart of the matter—that the regional health authority disregarded the planning context, and at no stage submitted a planning application to the planning authority to find out what might or might not be acceptable.

Mr. Sackville: As I said, our remit is to dispose of property at the price that professional advisers tell us it is worth. The question of planning is for other people. If professional advisers in the region believe that the buyer is good for a sum which is said to be the proper price for the property, that is our main consideration. The question


whether the buyer obtains planning permission is one for the planning authority and for the new owners. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in saying that if the price that has been offered is a good one, the NHS will achieve that price.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Six o'clock.